The first African-American armored unit to see combat (WWII)

[2RHPZ]

761st Tank Battalion: Black Tankers of WWII

The 761st 'Black Panther' Tank Battalion was the first African-American armored unit to see combat.

By Joseph E. Wilson, Jr.


In October 1944, after two years of intense armored training, the 761st Tank Battalion, known as the "Black Panthers," landed in France. The tankers received a welcome from the Third Army commander, Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr., who had observed the 761st conducting training maneuvers in the States: "Men, you're the first Negro tankers to ever fight in the American Army. I would never have asked for you if you weren't good. I have nothing but the best in my Army. I don't care what color you are as long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sons of bitches. Everyone has their eyes on you and is expecting great things from you. Most of all your race is looking forward to you. Don't let them down and damn you, don't let me down!"

On November 8, 1944, the Black Panthers became the first African-American armored unit to enter combat, smashing into the towns of Moyenvic and Vic-sur-Seille. During the attack, Staff Sgt. Ruben Rivers, in Able Company's lead tank, encountered a roadblock that held up the advance. With utter disregard for his personal safety, he courageously climbed out of his tank under direct enemy fire, attached a cable to the roadblock and removed it. His prompt action prevented a serious delay in the offensive and was instrumental in the success of the attack.

Article (http://historynet.com/wwii/blblackpanthertanks/)

[Kitsune]

While it is nice for black Americans to have their particpation in the war recognized, I have a problem with the propaganda style of this article (it's by no means the only one, actually it is typically for many American accounts of WWII).

Aside from the question wether reports of this and that MG marksman who killed "a number of enemies that would have formed the composition of 3 or 4 companies" are actually true (and even if, you possibly could say the same for German MG marksman at Normandy beach...its still the question wether that really implies any superiority) there is also this "during that time, the unit inflicted 130,000 casualties on the German army and captured, destroyed or aided in the liberation of more than 30 towns, several concentration camps, four airfields, three ammunition supply dumps, 461 wheeled vehicles, 34 tanks, 113 large guns, and thousands of individual and crew-served weapons" stuff. (I remember a similar way being used to describe the combat effectivness of Patton's army which "inflicted causalites of 1.5 million men on the enemy" and such). This is a rather nefarious propaganda trick, implying a superiority that wasn't there in that way. (Actually the Western Allied troops had even slightly larger KIA numbers than the Germans during the Western Campaign, despite being completely superior in numbers and material).

To make this more clear, consider the following example:
As an propagandist I want to make the German army look especially good. Therefore I say: "during the Polish campaign the German Wehrmacht inflicted losses on the enemy that were around 1 million soldiers. At the same time, the permanent German losses were 14.000 men". The staggering one million number is the size of the Polish army that was defeated, since Poland capitulated I just have considered them all as neutralized aka 'losses'. To the more simple-minded reader this would imply a superiority of Germans to Poles in the ratio of 70:1!
Need I to point out why this is a complete propaganda distortion?

[Musashi]

To make this more clear, consider the following example:
As an propagandist I want to make the German army look especially good. Therefore I say: "during the Polish campaign the German Wehrmacht inflicted losses on the enemy that were around 1 million soldiers. At the same time, the permanent German losses were 14.000 men". The staggering one million number is the size of the Polish army that was defeated, since Poland capitulated I just have considered them all as neutralized aka 'losses'. To the more simple-minded reader this would imply a superiority of Germans to Poles in the ratio of 70:1!
Need I to point out why this is a complete propaganda distortion?
For fvck's sake:
1. Poland did not capitulate. You confuse Poland with France. Show me act of Polish capitulation if you are so clever.
2. Why do you attribute all glory to the German Army and forget about great Soviet friends? Poland was attacked from TWO sides, in case you verstehst nicht ob vergassen. Germans took just 49% of Polish territory. The Soviets took 51% of Poland's territory and they took a few hundreds of Polish prisoners (300,000+)
3. Why do you count total Polish losses and just permanent German losses? Your number even doesn't acknowledge MIAs+KIAs on German side.

[Pan_Grzegorz]

For fvck's sake:
1. Poland did not capitulate. You confuse Poland with France. Show me act of Polish capitulation if you are so clever.
2. Why do you attribute all glory to the German Army and forget about great Soviet friends? Poland was attacked from TWO sides, in case you verstehst nicht ob vergassen. Germans took just 49% of Polish territory. The Soviets took 51% of Poland's territory and they took a few hundreds of Polish prisoners (300,000+)
3. Why do you count total Polish losses and just permanent German losses? Your number even doesn't acknowledge MIAs+KIAs on German side.

Hmm I think that he just wanted to show how such propaganda from German side would look like...

[Musashi]

OK, I am sorry.
I read it too fast and did not read everything. I have been online for 15+ hours.
Verzeihen Sie p-)

[ronin2172]

While it is nice for black Americans to have their particpation in the war recognized, I have a problem with the propaganda style of this article (it's by no means the only one, actually it is typically for many American accounts of WWII).

Aside from the question wether reports of this and that MG marksman who killed "a number of enemies that would have formed the composition of 3 or 4 companies" are actually true (and even if, you possibly could say the same for German MG marksman at Normandy beach...its still the question wether that really implies any superiority) there is also this "during that time, the unit inflicted 130,000 casualties on the German army and captured, destroyed or aided in the liberation of more than 30 towns, several concentration camps, four airfields, three ammunition supply dumps, 461 wheeled vehicles, 34 tanks, 113 large guns, and thousands of individual and crew-served weapons" stuff. (I remember a similar way being used to describe the combat effectivness of Patton's army which "inflicted causalites of 1.5 million men on the enemy" and such). This is a rather nefarious propaganda trick, implying a superiority that wasn't there in that way. (Actually the Western Allied troops had even slightly larger KIA numbers than the Germans during the Western Campaign, despite being completely superior in numbers and material).

To make this more clear, consider the following example:
As an propagandist I want to make the German army look especially good. Therefore I say: "during the Polish campaign the German Wehrmacht inflicted losses on the enemy that were around 1 million soldiers. At the same time, the permanent German losses were 14.000 men". The staggering one million number is the size of the Polish army that was defeated, since Poland capitulated I just have considered them all as neutralized aka 'losses'. To the more simple-minded reader this would imply a superiority of Germans to Poles in the ratio of 70:1!
Need I to point out why this is a complete propaganda distortion?
cry me a river.....

the victors write history....deal with it.

besides what proof do you have that these numbers are wrong, besides your pride as a german?

[Kitsune]

ronin2172:


the victors write history....
That is always a way to look at it...

I don't know wether the numbers are wrong (although I see every reason to mistrust the article). But it's the way they are used that bothered me.

Perhaps a better way to describe what I meant:
Forget WWII, the Afro-americans, the Germans and the Poles (easy) for a minute. Let us assume, that, in the year 2007 a war between US army and US Marine Corps breaks out. (Don't be concerned with the why, let's just say budgetary discussions. Or very realistic simulation software makes a mock battle possible that is next to indistinguishable from the real thing. Or whatever).
In such a battle 60.000 Marines are pinned down by 120.000 Army men (comparable equipment no tanks against infantery). It goes back and forth with offensive and counteroffensive and finally, the Marines run out of ammo and have capitulate. After the battle the dead are counted: 20.000 suffered by the Marines and 30.000 by the Army force.

Now an army PR guy describes the battle as follows: "in heavy fighting our glorious US Army outfit inflicted 60.000 losses on the enemy (the Marine outfit who had to give up and was therefore completely neutralized), while suffering 30.000 dead themselves". Not a lie at all. All numbers right. Some Army fans hear this and say: "Hey, I knew it that these Leathernecks were only bigmouths. Those numbers show clearly that one US-Army soldier is worth as much as two Marines!"
True? Do the numbers of this example show that an US Army soldier fought better than a Marine?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I know in WW2 Australia we imposed a ban on African American soldiers comming to Australia if they were in a combat unit.

They were also not allowed into town centers and were confined to their camps.

If you think Aparthied was bad. You should read up on the "White Australia Policy"

[ronin2172]

ronin2172:


That is always a way to look at it...

I don't know wether the numbers are wrong (although I see every reason to mistrust the article). But it's the way they are used that bothered me.

Perhaps a better way to describe what I meant:
Forget WWII, the Afro-americans, the Germans and the Poles (easy) for a minute. Let us assume, that, in the year 2007 a war between US army and US Marine Corps breaks out. (Don't be concerned with the why, let's just say budgetary discussions. Or very realistic simulation software makes a mock battle possible that is next to indistinguishable from the real thing. Or whatever).
In such a battle 60.000 Marines are pinned down by 120.000 Army men (comparable equipment no tanks against infantery). It goes back and forth with offensive and counteroffensive and finally, the Marines run out of ammo and have capitulate. After the battle the dead are counted: 20.000 suffered by the Marines and 30.000 by the Army force.

Now an army PR guy describes the battle as follows: "in heavy fighting our glorious US Army outfit inflicted 60.000 losses on the enemy (the Marine outfit who had to give up and was therefore completely neutralized), while suffering 30.000 dead themselves". Not a lie at all. All numbers right. Some Army fans hear this and say: "Hey, I knew it that these Leathernecks were only bigmouths. Those numbers show clearly that one US-Army soldier is worth as much as two Marines!"
True? Do the numbers of this example show that an US Army soldier fought better than a Marine?
I really dont know and frankly I don't care. How the Army or whoever worded this article matters not one iota to me...all that matters is that these men are getting their just recognition. These men did their duty and sacrificed their youth, bodies and in some cases their lives for a country that was less than greatful for their actions as they were considered inferior.

[Roaming East]

Okay so anyway you cut it, whether killed or not. Those combatants taken out of action for continued sustained operations are losses. Get over it. The defender ALWAYS has the advantage generally in terms of actual casaulties inflicted as its the aggressors job to plow through defensive works to route out the enemy (plus the enemy simply has more targets to engage). At the end of the day if 1/3 of your forces are killed outright and the rest captured; guess what? you suffered 100% combat losses and have suffered a crushing defeat. no matter how many of the nemy you killed in comparison to yours. He who holds the field holds the day and what not...