Holly Branch Retreat: Fill & Download for Free

Gwydion fab DônA magician, hero and trickster of Welsh mythology, appearing most prominently in the Fourth Branch of the Mabinogi, which focuses largely on his relationship with his young nephew, Lleu Llaw Gyffes. He also appears prominently in the Welsh Triads, the Book of Taliesin and the Stanzas of the Graves.Gwydion slays Pryderi in single combat.Gilfaethwy, nephew to the Venedotian king, Math fab Mathonwy, becomes obsessed with his uncle's virgin foot-holder, Goewin. His brother Gwydion conspires to start a war between the north and the south. To this end, Gwydion employs his magic powers to steal a number of otherworldly pigs from the Demetian king, Pryderi, who retaliates by marching on Gwynedd. During the war, while Math is distracted, the brothers return home and rape Goewin.Pryderi and his men march north and fight a battle between Maenor Bennardd and Maenor Coed Alun, but are forced to retreat. He is pursued to Nant Call, where more of his men are slaughtered, and then to Dol Benmaen, where he suffers a third defeat. To avoid further bloodshed, it is agreed that the outcome of the battle should be decided by single combat between Gwydion and Pryderi. The two contenders meet at a place called Y Velen Rhyd in Ardudwy, and "because of strength and valour and magic and enchantment", Gwydion triumphs and Pryderi is killed. The men of Dyfed retreat back to their own land, lamenting over the death of their lord.When Math hears of the assault on Goewin, he turns his nephews into a series of mated pairs of animals: Gwydion becomes a stag for a year, then a sow and finally a wolf. Gilfaethwy becomes a hind deer, a boar and a she-wolf. Each year they produce an offspring which is sent to Math: Hyddwn, Hychddwn and Bleiddwn. After three years, Math releases his nephews from their punishment and begins the search for a new foot-holder. Gwydion suggests his sister Arianrhod, who is magically tested for virginity by Math. During the test, she gives birth to a "sturdy boy with thick yellow hair" whom Math names Dylan and who takes on the nature of the seas until his death at his uncle Gofannon's hands.Ashamed, Arianrhod runs to the door, but on her way out something small drops from her, which Gwydion wraps up and places in a chest at the foot of his bed. Some time later, he hears screams from within the chest, and opens it to discover a baby boy. Some scholars have suggested that in an earlier form of the Fourth Branch, Gwydion was the father of Arianrhod's sons.Some years later, Gwydion accompanies the boy to Caer Arianrhod, and presents him to his mother. The furious Arianrhod, shamed by this reminder of her loss of virginity, places a tynged on the boy: that only she could give him a name. Gwydion however tricks his sister by disguising himself and the boy as cobblers and luring Arianrhod into going to them in person in order to have some shoes made for her. The boy throws a stone and strikes a wren "between the tendon and the bone of its leg", causing Arianrhod to make the remark "it is with a skillful hand that the fair-haired one has hit it ". At that Gwydion reveals himself, saying Lleu Llaw Gyffes; "the fair-haired one with the skillful hand," is his name now". Furious at this trickery, Arianrhod places another tynged on Lleu: he shall receive arms from no one but Arianrhod herself. Gwydion tricks his sister once again, and she unwittingly arms Lleu herself, leading to her placing a third tynged on him: that he shall never have a human wife.So as to counteract Arianrhod's curse, Math and Gwydion:the flowers of the oak, and the flowers of the broom, and the flowers of the meadowsweet, and from those they conjured up the fairest and most beautiful maiden anyone had ever seen. And they baptized her in the way that they did at that time, and named her Blodeuwedd.Blodeuwedd has an affair with Gronw Pebr, the lord of Penllyn, and the two conspire to murder Lleu. Blodeuwedd tricks Lleu into revealing how he may be killed, since he can not be killed during the day or night, nor indoors or outdoors, neither riding nor walking, not clothed and not naked, nor by any weapon lawfully made. He reveals to her that he can only be killed at dusk, wrapped in a net with one foot on a cauldron and one on a goat and with a spear forged for a year during the hours when everyone is at mass. With this information she arranges his death.Struck by the spear thrown by Gronw's hand, Lleu transforms into an eagle and flies away. Gwydion tracks him down and finds him perched high on an oak tree. Through the singing of an englyn (known as englyn Gwydion) he lures him down from the oaktree and switches him back to his human form. Gwydion and Math nurse Lleu back to health before reclaiming his lands from Gronw and Blodeuwedd. In the face-off between Lleu and Gronw, Gronw asks if he may place a large stone between himself and Lleu's spear. Lleu allows him to do so, then throws his spear which pierces both the stone and Gronw, killing him. Gwydion corners Blodeuwedd and turns her into an owl, the creature hated by all other birds. The tale ends with Lleu ascending to the throne of Gwynedd.The Battle of the TreesA large tradition seems to have once surrounded the Battle of the Trees, a mythological conflict fought between the sons of Dôn and the forces of Annwn, the Welsh Otherworld. Amaethon, Gwydion's brother, steals a white roebuck and a whelpfrom Arawn, king of the otherworld, leading to a great battle.Gwydion fights alongside his brother and, assisted by Lleu, enchants the "elementary trees and sedges" to rise up as warriors against Arawn's forces. The alder leads the attack, while the aspen falls in battle, and heaven and earth tremble before the oak, a "valiant door keeper against the enemy". The bluebells combine and cause a "consternation" but the hero is the holly, tinted with green.A warrior fighting alongside Arawn cannot be vanquished unless his enemies can guess his name. Gwydion guesses the warrior's name, identifying him from the sprigs of alder on his shield, and sings two englyns:"Sure-hoofed is my steed impelled by the spur;The high sprigs of alder are on thy shield;Bran art thou called, of the glittering branches."Sure-hoofed is my steed in the day of battle:The high sprigs of alder are on thy hand:Bran by the branch thou bearestHas Amathaon the good prevailed."Other traditionsCaer Wydion, the castle of Gwydion, was the traditional Welsh name for the Milky Way.In the 10th century, Old Welsh "Harleian" genealogies (Harleian MS 3859), mention is made of Lou Hen ("Lou the old") map Guidgen, who most scholars identify with Lleu and Gwydion (who is implied to be Lleu's father in the Mabinogi of Math, though this relationship isn't explicitly stated). In the genealogy they are made direct descendants Caratauc son of Cinbelin son of Teuhant (recte Tehuant), who are to be identified with the historical Catuvellaunian leaders Caratacus, Cunobelinus and Tasciovanus.A number of references to Gwydion can be found in early Welsh poetry. The poem Prif Gyuarch Taliessin asks "Lleu and Gwydion / Will they perform magics?", while in the same corpus, the poem Kadeir Cerridwen relates many familiar traditions concerning Gwydion, including his creating of a woman out of flowers and his bringing of the pigs from the south. This poem also refers to a lost tradition concerning a battle between Gwydion and an unknown enemy at the Nant Ffrangon. Another Taliesin poem, Echrys Ynys refers to Gwynedd as the "Land of Gwydion" while in the Ystoria Taliesin, the legendary bard claims to have been present at Gwydion's birth "before the court of Don".Dinas Dinlle, Gwydion's final resting place.The Welsh Triads name Gwydion as one of the "Three Golden Shoemakers of the Island of Britain" alongside Manawydan fab Llyr and Caswallawn fab Beli, and records that Math taught him one of the "Three Great Enchantments". The Stanzas of the Gravesrecord that he was buried at Dinas Dinlle, the city of Lleu.A reference to Gwydion is also made in the Dialogue of Taliesin and Ugnach, a dialogue-poem found in the Black Book of Carmarthen. Within the narrative, the character of Taliesin states:"When I return from Caer SeonFrom contending with JewsI will come to the city of Lleu and Gwydion."

There is a lot more to tank combat in a combined arms team than armor protection, mobility and firepower, the “Iron Trinity” so beloved by wargamers.The problem is that both wargamers and reporters miss what is really important in winning. This is why the March 1945 sensational headlines about the Sherman failing in WW2 tank combat have been recycled over and over since WW2. But more of that later.First, people have often sited the reliability and logistical advantages of the M4 Sherman without understanding this was the result of systems engineering taking into account/paying attention to the human interface with the crew for “Fightability” in battles, the mechanical interface with the crew and mechanics that provides “Maintainability” for campaigns and the organizational interface behind the crews & mechanics of the vehicle that provide for “Sustainability” which wins a war.This can be best measured by how systems engineering helped M4 Sherman crews shoot, move and communicate.Take a look at the photo below from Nicholas Moran’s Sherman Tank presentation to NYMAS that was recorded by CSPAN3The two German armored fighting vehicles (Panzer IV middle, Panther bottom) above both had superior optical gun site performance to that of the Sherman tank at the top. They could see farther, in lower light and were subject to less glare and “fogging out” from heat/cold driven humidity.Yet, if you were fighting from a defensive position versus an enemy armored attack. Which tank was less detectable, thus more likely to get off the first shot, and less likely to be hit if it were detected? Or even more important, when a tank slowly crests a hill, and stops when it has vision, while the enemy is watching from the other side?Go back and look at that photo again. Both the Sherman commander and gunner had multiple power optical sites at the same level — the turret roof .Meanwhile the German AFV’s had roof level commander view with no mounted optics (binoculars if he was a platoon commander) versus the gun tube level optical view for the gunner. IOW, the German AFV commander and gunner didn’t see the same things. And the German commander didn’t have the Sherman’s power over ride to traverse the turret gun on to a target he was seeing for the gunner.So, which armored fighting vehicles will be developed more combat power by shooting first in either a defensive or slowly assuming an offensive position? Despite having inferior optical sub-system performance to the German AFV’s, the Sherman’s superior integration of the optical sites into the over all design made for a tank that shot first more often despite having inferior sites, gun performance and armor.As for moving, both the German tanks and guns and the M4 Sherman tanks had front mounted transmissions and rear mounted gasoline engines (diesel powered M4A2’s used in lend lease and by the USMC excepted). Yet the physical differences in terms of travel time from factory to battlefield made all the difference in the design for both individual AFV “Maintainability” and AFV force “Sustainability.”The Germans were working from a physical one week turn around from a requisition for a replacement part or replacement tank being granted and it physically showing up at a railway siding supporting the AFV unit.The American Army replacement requisition for a part or a tank was 120 days away by priority transport to the ETO from the US East Coast.It was 180 days — six months — away from it’s units in New Guinea, the Philippines or Okinawa.The Germans could quite literally take a heavily damaged tank from Western Russia, Italy, or France. Send it to a repair depot inside Germany. And get that AFV repaired and back to the front in the time it took for the American Army to get a replacement from the East Coast of the USA.This times/distance for supply system requisition turn around wonderfully focused the American military mind on making individual sub-components of its tanks as reliable as possible. Also — since ships could more efficiently carry spare parts than tanks — having a lot of spares for the few tanks you could ship was a great idea. And that finally, it was extremely sensitive to how long it took to repair individual vehicles with it’s more reliable sub-components because it could only transport so many of tanks to those extreme distances. The bottom line for the American Army was that the tanks it did have in combat units had better be on the battlefield as much as possible or all the effort to get them there was pure loss.No where is this difference better shown that with the M4 Sherman’s transmission.The Sherman’s transmission was part of a bolt on/bolt off cast armored unit that could be removed and replaced in two hours. It was more reliable than transmission to transmission that those of German AFV’s. And there were more of them in an Armored Division or a US Army Corps than the equivalent German units.The less reliable German AFV’s transmission was buried behind it’s heavily armored front slope. You had to remove the turret or gun mount (Stug or Jadpanzer), the front crew compartment controls to finally get to the transmission. Then after you replaced the transmission, in went the crew controls and either the turret or gun mount.The above evolution with German AFV’s took at least six hours. And there was additional time required by the crew of the repaired AFV’s to check out the driver control linkages, the turret hydraulics (tank) and re-calibrating the gun mount’s fire control (Stug or Jadpanzer). Hours that come out of the German AFV crew’s sleep cycles.At any given time, a fleet of an equal number of M4 Sherman’s will outnumber a fleet of German 25(+) ton AFV’s at the point of contact. And in a long distance battle of movement, the Sherman force will lose fewer vehicles to transmission issues.When it comes to communications, the American Sherman in its ground units could not be touched.The quartz crystal controlled, frequency modulated (FM) very high frequency (VHF) radios used by the M4 Sherman could be used on the move. And every single tank had both a receiver and a transmitter.See the video blow:German tank radios were amplitude modulated (AM) and were not controlled by crystals. They always wandered from their assigned frequency when the tanks they were in moved. Thus it required time after a move to get a platoon, company or battalion tank radio network back up. And since only a German Tank platoon commander in the early and late period of WW2 had a transmitter. A lot of receivers never found the right frequency until after flag and hand signals had passed a message.STARTING A BAD REPUTATIONSo why did the Sherman get the bad press it did in Normandy and later in the Ardennes? And why has it been repeated for decades after? There were several reasons, one German/tactical, one Allied/Intelligence and two American/political.The Germans in Normandy retreated into the bocage country. It was an area of low operation tempo with few routes of approach which could be heavily mined and covered with high velocity anti-tank guns and AFV canons.See this aerial over view near Villars-Bocage :…and this photo of the micro-terrain UK M4 Sherman Firefly’s had to deal with in the bocage country:Allied intelligence, in preparing for the Normandy campaign, had completely missed the implications of the bocage country for military operations with armor. Tanks could not push through a Normandy hedge row and trying to go over it was very slow and showed tank belly armor to waiting German infantry Panzerfausts and Panzerschreck’s at optimum range.See:Hedgerow warfare in NormandyAdded to this low operational tempo terrain of the Bocage was the fact that the Germans introduced minimal metal mines of wood and glass (See: Minimum metal mine - Wikipedia) that were impossible for Allied mine sweeping gear to detect. It was not until after the war that the Allies learned that the Germans covered their low metal mines with a radioactive tar so the Geiger counters built in German mine sweeping gear could detect them.All of this was further compounded by US Army G-2 Intelligence thinking that the Panther was just another heavy tank — AKA it would be fielded in small very small numbers in Normandy — and a just discovered in Italian combat material failing with the fuses of the APCBC (armor piercing capped ballistic cap) projectiles of the 75mm on the Sherman that caused them to explode between the spaced plates on German Stug III and Panzer IV frontal armor. A replacement of the fuse and explosive with inert filler was on-going in the days up to the Normandy landing, but many Allied Sherman units had the defective shells early in the campaign for lack of anything else.The higher velocity APCBC for the 76mm was thought to be the match for the Tiger based on US Ordnance tests. The problem was the Ordnance test models used softer steel that the Germans and did not include sloped armor. This left them thinking that softer nosed US projectiles with sharp noses were the best for penetrating armor.What this inadequate US Army Ordnance testing did was set them up for a phenomena known as “Shatter Gap Failure.” They were not alone in thinking what they did about tank penetrating projectiles going into WW2, but they were among the last to figure it out.According to WW2 tank armor expert Lorrin Bird,During WW II, a phenomenon known as shatter gap resulted in hits with too much penetration failing to defeat the armor.The British noted this oddity in Libya and other North African areas, where rounds that could penetrate beyond 1000 yards would fail at shorter ranges, or hits would fail at short range and then start to penetrate further out.The theory on shatter gap is that when hits penetrate on half the hits at a given velocity (the basis for most penetration data), there are certain impact forces on the projectile nose. If the velocity is increased and the armor thickness is held constant, the round moves armor out of the way faster, which leads to increased inertial forces on the ammo nose.If the projectile nose is too soft, such that it absorbs much of the impact energy, the nose can shatter and break up. U.S. and Russian ammunition fell into the shatter gap nose hardness range (less than 59 Rockwell C). While British ammunition was harder than the threshold, some characteristic of the projectiles made it vulnerable to shatter gap.With regard to Tiger armor, shatter gap normally occurs when the armor thickness is close to, equal to or thicker than the projectile diameter. U.S. 76mm APCBC hits on Tiger armor would fall into this category.If 76mm APCBC hit the Tiger driver plate at 12° side angle, the resultant resistance would equal 109mm at 0°. With shatter gap, rounds fail when they have 1.05 to 1.25 times the armor resistance, which would result in M10 failures from point blank to 550 meters range, and then penetrate from 550m to 750m.On M10 hits against the Tiger side armor at 30° side angle, the resistance would equal 103mm at 0°, and M10 hits would be expected to fail from point blank to 800m, and then penetrate from 800m to 1000m.U.S. Navy tests during WW II against 3" armor at 30°, using 76mm APCBC, resulted in 50% penetration at about 2069 fps impact, and then the hits failed from 2073 fps through 2376 fps.Firing tests with 75mm APCBC did not appear to result in shatter gap failures, suggesting that impact velocities above 2000 fps would be required for nose failure.Prior to Normandy, the Americans calculated that their 76mm gun would be sufficient to stop Panthers and Tigers, since the 100mm frontal armor on those panzers could theoretically be penetrated to 1250m by M10's and 76mm armed Shermans. Shatter gap may be responsible, in part, for the sorry showing of those guns in France against heavy German armor.There were a lot of things that contributed to "shatter gap failure" beyond a soft nose.If you have too big a HE compartment in the shell (over 5%), too pointed a penetrator under the ballistic cap (Blunt was best for taking out sloped armor), or had a poor fuse that will set off the shell inside a multiple plate armor array, your shell will break up before penetrating what your ballistic table say it should.This is how Lorrin Bird described the issue of sharpness in tank penetrator design:…The longer the nose cone, the more slanted penetration can turn the projectile and lead to increased path through the armor or even riochet. The Germans were the first to recognize this in WW-II when they moved to APCBC ammo, the ratio of the diameter of the tip to the diameter of the body change from 10:1 or more down to 4:1 to 5:1 and the interior projectile was cap with a blunted shape piece. The impact was to reduce the stress on slanted impact. The Russians where the next to recognize this with the BR-350A which featured 6:1 tip to body ratio and blunted cap. But the Americans didn't clue in until after the war. The M61 had tip to body ratio of 15:1 with a conical ballistic cap. Same construction is seen in the 76mm M-62 & 90mm M82 APC rounds.Now see the US Army Ordnance 3-inch/76mm APCBC shell design below.It was in this Summer 1944 Normandy period that the US Army started losing confidence in the M4 Sherman versus the German “Big Cats”.See:Lessons of the Roer and the ArdennesAfter D-day, the disillusionment with the 76-mm. gun increased with further experience on the battlefield. Bradley noted that the 76-mm. often "scuffed rather than penetrated" the heavy armor of the German Panthers and Tigers. Aware that the British could pierce the thick-skinned Panther with their 17-pounder mounted on the Sherman, which they called the Firefly, he asked General Montgomery to equip one M4 in each U.S. tank platoon with a 17-pounder. This effort came to nothing for two reasons: first, Ordnance in England was overloaded with British orders; and second, the combat units were too short of tanks to spare any to send to England for the purpose. Bradley's solution for the time being was to use towed 90-mm. guns to form a secondary line of defense behind his Shermans.41When Brig. Gen. Joseph A. Holly, chief of ETOUSA's Armored Fighting Vehicles and Weapons Section, returned to the United States in July 1944 to urge the shipment of more self-propelled 90-mm. guns, he looked into the possibility of getting a tank mounted with the 90-mm. gun. Obviously, the best bet for quick results was still to mount the gun on the M4, the tank already in large production. In Detroit Holly saw an M4 modified by Chrysler to carry the 90-mm. and thought it had "tempting possibilities." But the T26E1 production had been initiated already and had such high priority that no delivery of the modified M4 could be promised before January 1945. By that time the T26E1 would be coming off the production line in limited numbers: 10 were scheduled for October, 30 for November, 50 for December, 125 for January, and 200 for February. The decision, therefore, was to abandon modification of the M4 and devote all facilities available to furthering the production of the T26E1.42It was the “Culin cutter” or Rhino tank - Wikipedia that restored mobility in Normandy. This welded on set of steel teeth allowed American tanks to penetrate past the depth of German defenses around the heavily mined with overlapping AT-gun defenses road blocks.It also restored the US Army’s confidence in the M4 Sherman until the Roer Plain and Ardennes battles of Novmber 1944 and Dec 1944 - Jan 1945 respectively.Per the Rhino tank wikipedia article:War correspondent Chester Wilmot wrote after the war that the German defensive plan to halt any American breakout was to hold the front line "very lightly and to concentrate upon holding the road junctions for a depth of three or four miles behind the front", with the intention of delaying any break-through by reducing the speed of the advance to the pace the infantry could manage.[14]Once Operation Cobra was launched, Allied troops were able to bypass the German positions using the Rhino tanks, thereby allowing the advance to continue, leaving the strong points to be dealt with by infantry and engineers.[15]Blumenson describes how during the launch of Operation Cobra, tanks with the 2nd Infantry Division, supported by artillery, advanced without infantry for twenty minutes, covering several hundred yards and knocking holes in hedgerows before returning to their starting position. The tanks and infantry then advanced rapidly together before the Germans were able to re-establish their defensive positions.[16]See also this MilitaryHistoryOnline -dot- com article:Breakout from the HedgerowsOnce past the defended bocage, the M4 Sherman’s ability to move reliably long distances, coordinated via reliable radio communications while moving and its ability to generally shoot first when it arrived in a meeting engagement powered Allied army’s and particularly the VHF FM radio rich American Army across France to the German border.The success of the 4th Armored Division of 3rd US Army in seeing off two Panther tank equipped Panzer Brigades counter attacking 3rd Army’s Normandy break out fully restored the flagging reputation of the M4 Sherman.Then the Allied Armies stalled on the French - German border without a major port to provide enough logistical support. Thank’s to General Montgomery’s failure to capture the approaches to the port of Antwerp.US ARMY FACTIONAL POLITICS AND REPUTATION OF THE M4 SHERMANIt was the September to December 1944 stall on the French - German border, particularly the November 1944 Battle of the Roer Plain, that turned the 2nd Armored Division sour on the M4 Sherman versus the “Big Cats.”Again fromLessons of the Roer and the ArdennesThe American tanks came off less creditably in the battle of the Roer plain. The tankers, deprived by the terrain and mud of their ability to outflank the enemy, by the congestion in the area of their usual artillery direct support, and by bad weather of much assistance from the air, had fought magnificently; but they had become disillusioned about the ability of their tanks to defeat German armor. "Our men no longer have as much confidence in their armor and guns as they used to have," one of the 2d Armored Division tankers said two days after the Roer plain offensive. Another said, "The Germans have been improving steadily ever since we met them in Sicily," and "Our Ordnance Department needs to get on the ball."22This was not merely a momentary reaction from battle-weary men. After the war an Armored School report, prepared with the assistance of 2d Armored Division tank commanders who had participated in the action, stated that the most important factor in the set-back at Puffendorf on 17 November—"the biggest tank battle in 2nd Armored experience"—was "the inferiority of our tanks in guns, armor, and maneuverability."23At the time of the Roer plain offensive the tankers had been impressed by the superiority of the wide German tank tracks, which barely sank in the ground, while the American tracks made trenches. The tankers complained that the Shermans were too slow to get quickly out of the way of antitank fire (as the light tanks could); that their suspensions, of the volute spring type, adversely affected maneuverability (most considered the torsion bar suspension superior in maneuverability and reliability); that their silhouette was too high; and that their armor was not much better than that of the tank destroyers. Above all, the tankers complained of their guns. They had seen their 75-mm. and 76-mm. shells bounce off the front plate of the Panthers as well as the Tigers—"like hitting them with a pea-shooter." The 76-mm. gun was better than the 75-mm. but did not have enough velocity to keep the tank out of the range of the more powerful German tank guns, which were effective at 3,000 to 3,500 yards. At practical ranges the 76-mm., even with HVAP ammunition, would not successfully penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther. "The guns are ineffective, the crews know it, and it affects their morale," the tank commanders stated. They concluded that the British had the right idea when they threw away the 75-mm. guns on their lend-lease Shermans and mounted their 17-pounders. The 2d Armored Division tankers believed that their own Shermans could easily mount a 90-mm. gun.24The 1st Army was the “First Team” of the US Army in WW2. It’s Normandy Commander General Omar Bradley later became Chief of Staff of the US Army after General Eisenhower. Since the 2nd Armored Division was the most experienced of the 1st US Army’s armored formations. It’s opinion carried a political weight inside the US Army disproportionate to its size and nominal importance in the US Army.This meant there were a lot of 1st Army officers who blamed the M4 Sherman’s Roer Plain performance for not ending WW2 before Christmas 1944. Which was the wide spread and very unrealistic expectation of Allied high command in the Summer/Fall of 1944.Then came the “Tank Shock” of the Dec 1944/Jan 1945 German Ardennes Offensive which effectively cut 1st Army in half after it’s senior officers ignored their own G-2 intelligence officer telling them it was coming.Blaming equipment for command failures in the early Ardennes period became rather more important for the “1st Team” in February-March 1945 than in September 1944.This just so happened to be the time that Zebra mission with General Gladeon Marcus Barnes’ first 20 T26E3 Pershing tanks arrived in France.GENERAL BARNES, during ZEBRA mission.The Ordnance branch had a problem with it’s pending post-war reputation over the lack of armor punching capability of it’s M4 Sherman tank guns and the T26E3 with the 90mm gun was it’s answer.Not really, since the real problem was Ordnance’s tank projectile designs, but politics is often a blame game and the existence of the T26E3 in France and Germany in February - May 1945 utterly redirected the issue to the Pershing’s development and not Ordnance’s failures with the M4 Sherman’s anti-tank projectiles.This US Army Ordnance bait and switch game was greatly assisted by media attacks on the Sherman in March 1945 by Hanson W. Baldwin in the New York Times and the editor of the Washington Post demanding to know why the M4 Sherman’s were so inferior to the German “Big Cats” the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger.See:HOW CARTOONIST BERRYMAN SAW THE TANK CONTROVERSY.From the Washington, D.C., Evening Star, March 25, 1945.If you think this looks something like some of the “Deep State” leak games going on with the Trump Administration and the Russia collusion controversy, you would be right.Only senior uniformed leaders in the War Department would have been in the position to pass on the hole punching failures of the M4 Sherman with the German “Big Cats.”There was little chance that it would have come from Sec of War Stimpson or Assistant Secretary of War Judge Patterson given where it leaked. Assistant Secretary of War Judge Patterson early in his War Department tenure had caught out the New York Times falsely accusing the M1 Garand Rifle of being poor weapon in favor of a competing rifle the New York Times owner had a financial interest in.This made NY Times reporter Hanson W. Baldwin personal non grata with Judge Patterson and the senior civilians around him.This left the “1st Team’s” or, more likely, General Barnes Ordnance branch senior aides as the source for the Tank Controversy leak in Washington D.C.That General Barnes was highly interested in burnishing both his and the Ordnance Branch’s wartime reputation cannot be doubted. Nicholas Moran found and posted the following 1951 General Barnes letter to the Ordnance Branch historian doing just that:Chieftain's Hatch: Ordnance Dept Tank DevelopmentIn the times since the publication of the 1966 publication ofUNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR IIThe Technical ServicesTHE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT:ON BEACHHEAD AND BATTLEFRONTThree books have defined the poor public memory of the M4 ShermanBailey, Charles M. Faint Praise, American Tanks and Tank Destroyers during World War II. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Book, 1983.2. Christopher R. Gabel, Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II, Leavenworth Papers series 12 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1985), https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a532138.pdf3. Belton Y. Cooper, Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II Presidio Press; First edition (August 4, 1998) ISBN-10: 0891416706 ISBN-13: 978-0891416708Each in their own ways have furthered the M4 Sherman “Deathtrap with a Pop Gun” meme.It has been only in the last 5-years — with World of Tank’s researcher Nicholas Moran’s systematic deep dives in the the US National Archives in Maryland to support his employer’s wargame tank statistics — that a sustained assault on the “Sherman is a Deathtrap” standard narrative has started to collapse its credibility.

I had some research and found a very interesting article on the New York Invasive Species website (NYIS).This is “Mile-A-Minute Weed”ProblemMile-A-Minute Weed (Persicaria perfoliata) is a vigorous, barbed, vine that smothers other herbaceous plants, shrubs and even trees by growing over them. Growing up to 6 inches per day, mile-a-minute weed forms dense mats that cover other plants and then stresses and weakens themthrough smothering and physically damaging them. Sunlight is blocked, thus decreasing the covered plant’s ability to photosynthesize; and the weight and pressure of the mile-a-minute weed can cause poor growth of branches and foliage. The smothering can eventually kill overtopped plants.HistoryMile-a-minute weed (Persicaria perfoliata (L.) H. Gross, formerly Polygonum perfoliatum) is a member of the Polygonum or Buckwheat family. It is native to India and Eastern Asia and was accidentally introduced via contaminated holly seed into York County, PA in 1930. As of September 2011, mile-a-minute weed has been found in all the Mid-Atlantic states, southern New England, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon. In New York, mile-a-minute weed has been recorded mostly in counties south of the northern Connecticut boarder. Mile-a-minute weed has a large potential to expand in cooler areas, as the seed requires an 8 week cold period in order to flower. It is estimated that mile-a-minute weed is in only 20% of its potential U.S. range.Infestations of mile-a-minute weed decrease native vegetation and habitat in natural areas impacting plants and the wildlife that depend on those plants as well. Mile-a-minute weed can also be a major pest in Christmas tree plantations, reforestation areas and young forest stands, and landscape nurseries. Areas that are regularly disturbed, such as powerline and utility right-of-ways where openings are created through regular herbicide use, are prime locations for mile-a-minute weed establishment. Small populations of rare plants could be completely destroyed. Thickets of these barbed plants can also be a deterrent to recreation.BiologyMile-a-minute weed is an herbaceous annual vine. Its leaves are alternate, light green, 4- to 7 cm long and 5 to 9 cm wide, and shaped like an equilateral triangle. Its green vines are narrow and delicate becoming woody and reddish with time. The vines and the undersides of leaves are covered with recurved barbs that aid in its ability to climb. Mile-a-minute has ocreae that surround the stems at nodes. This distinctive 1 to 2 cm feature is cup-shaped and leafy. Flower buds, and thus flowers and fruit, grow from these ocreae. When the small, white, inconspicuous flowers are pollinated they form spikes of blue, berry-like fruits, each containing a single glossy, black seed called an achene. Vines can grow up to 6 inches per day.Mile-a-minute weed is primarily a self-fertile plant and does not need any pollinators to produce viable seeds. Its ability to flower and produce seeds over a long period of time (June through October) make mile-a-minute weed a prolific seeder. Seeds can be viable in the soil for up to 6 years and can germinate at staggered intervals. Vines are killed by frost and the seeds overwinter in the soil. Mile-a-minute seeds require an 8 week vernalization period at temperatures below 10 degrees Celsius in order to flower, and therefore be a threat. Germination is generally early April through early July.Seeds are carried long distances by birds, which are presumed to be the main cause of long distance spread. Deer, chipmunks, squirrels and even one particular species of ant is known to eat mile-a-minute weed fruit. Viable seeds have been found in deer scat; an indication that other animals may also be vectors.Mile-a-minute weed seeds can float for 7-9 days, which allows for long distance movement in water. This movement can be amplified during storms when vines hanging over waterways drop their fruit into fast moving waters, which then spread the seeds throughout a watershed.HabitatMile-a-minute weed is generally found colonizing natural and man-made disturbed and open areas and along the edges of woods, streams, wetlands, uncultivated fields and roads. It can also be found in areas with extremely wet environments with poor soil structure, and while it will grow in drier soils, mile-a-minute prefers high moisture soils. It will tolerate some shade for part of the day, but prefers full sun. Using its specially adapted recurved barbs, mile-a-minute weed can reach sunlight by climbing over plants helping it outcompete other vegetation.ManagementMile-a-minute has a number of management options that can be employed. Different sites will dictate different levels of management depending on conditions and the level of infestation. Once all the plants have been removed, on-going monitoring and management must occur, for up to 6 years, in order to exhaust any seeds remaining in the soil.Biological ControlThe mile-a-minute weevil, Rhinocominus latipes Korotyaev, is a 2 mm long, black weevil which is often covered by an exuded orange film produced from the mile-a-minute plants it feeds on. This small weevil is host-specific to mile-a-minute weed and has been successfully released and recovered in multiple locations in the U.S.The adult weevils feed on the leaves of mile-a-minute weed and females lay eggs on the leaves and stems. When the eggs hatch, the larvae bore into the stem to complete their development, and feed on the stems between the nodes. The larvae then emerge and drop to the soil to pupate. There are3 – 4 overlapping generations per year, with about a month needed per generation. Egg laying ceases in late summer or early fall, and the mile-a-minute weevil overwinters as an adult in the soil or leaf litter.Mile-a-minute weevil feeding damage can stunt plants by causing the loss of apical dominance and can delay seed production. In the presence of competing vegetation, mile-a-minute weed can be killed by the weevil. The mile-a-minute weevil is more effective in the sun than in the shade. Over time, mile-a-minute weevils have been shown to reduce spring seedling counts. Biological control of mile-a-minute weed is currently the most promising and cost effective method.For more information on the mile-a-minute weevil check the University of Delaware Biological Control on Invasive Plants Research web site: http://ag.udel.edu/enwc/research/biocontrol/mileaminute.htmCultural ControlCultural methods can be used to help prevent mile-a-minute weed introduction to a new area. Maintain a stable plant community; avoid creating disturbances, openings or gaps in existing vegetation; and maintain wide, shade-producing, vegetative buffers along streams and wooded areas to prevent establishment.Manual and Mechanical ControlHand-pulling of vines can be effective; ideally before the barbs harden, afterwards thicker gloves are needed. Pull and bale vines and roots as early in the season as possible. Let the piles of vines dry out completely before disposing. Later in the season, vines must be pulled with caution as the fruit could be knocked off or spread more easily at this point. Collected plants can be incinerated or burned, left to dry and piled on site, or bagged and landfilled (least preferred). Dry piles left on site should be monitored and managed a few times each year, especially during the spring and early summer germination period to ensure any germinating seedlings are destroyed.Low growing populations of mile-a-minute weed can have their resources exhausted through repeated mowing or cutting. This will reduce flower production and therefore reduce fruit production.Chemical ControlMile-a-minute weed can be controlled with commonly used herbicides in moderate doses. The challenge with herbicides is mile-a-minute’s ability to grow over the top of desirable vegetation, and spraying the foliage of only the mile-a-minute weed can be challenging. Pre-emergent herbicides (herbicides that prevent seed germination) can be used with extensive infestations, often in combination with spot treatments of post-emergent herbicides (herbicides applied to the growing plant) for seedlings that escape control. Small populations are better controlled with post-emergent herbicides. General chemical control guidelines can be found at the “Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas” publication web page http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/control-vines.htm. Areas treated with herbicides need to be monitored and retreated as necessary when new seedlings emerge from the seed bank, see Manual and Mechanical Control above. Please contact your local Cornell Cooperative Extension officehttp://www.cce.cornell.edu for pesticide use guidelines. For treating wetland areas or infestations near water, contact a certified pesticide applicator. Always apply pesticides according to the label directions; it’s the law.ResourcesBiological Control of Mile-a-Minute Weed; University of Delaware, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. September 6, 2011. http://ag.udel.edu/enwc/research/biocontrol/mileaminute.htm.Plant Conservation Alliance’s Alien Plant Working Group Least Wanted Mile-A-Minute Fact Sheet. Authors: Okay, Judith; Judith Hough-Goldstein and Jil Swearingen. September 6, 2011.http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/pepe1.htmSwearingen, J., B. Slattery, K. Reshetiloff, and S. Zwicker. 2010. Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas, 4th ed. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 168pp.USDA National Agriculture Library - National Invasive Species Information Center September 6, 2011.http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/mileminute.shtmlUSDA 2009. Pest Alert, Mile-A-Minute Weed (Persicaria perfoliata). Forest Service Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. NA-PR-01-09. 2pp. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/pest_al/mm/pa_mam.pdfVan Driesche, R., et al., 2002, Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States, USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04, 413 p. http://www.invasiveplants.net/monitor/26MileAMinute.aspxLinksFor more information on the mile-a-minute weevil check the University of Delaware Biological Control on Invasive Plants Research web site: http://ag.udel.edu/enwc/research/biocontrol/mileaminute.htm“Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas” publication web pagehttp://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/control-vines.htm.All the Best!!