The tale of Sgt Melvin C. Anderson of the 803rd Tank Destroyer Battalion

[Kaleva]

"Sgt Melvin C. Anderson worked in the dry cleaning business prior to joining the Army in 1942.

His tank destroyer took a direct hit

There were 5 men in the tank - three were killed and two escaped. Eyewitness accounts by the survivors said that Sgt Anderson was hit, but was trying to escape the burning tank destroyer. In the confusion, the two survivors lost track of him.

When the unit returned to the site two days after the attack, they found the burned out shell of the tank destroyer, but there were no bodies inside or out. The eyewitnesses also stated that the tank destroyer had broken thru the forest and was located on the outside edge of the forest when they were hit.

On 11 May 2018 the Defence POW/MIA Accounting Agency announced that the remains of Sgt. Melvin C. Andeson were found and identified on 30 April 2018, buried in a grave at an ABMC cemetery as an unknown. A rosette will be placed next to his name at the Netherlands American Cemetery and Memorial, Margraten to indicate he has been accounted for."

https://www.fieldsofhonor-database.com/index.php/en/american-war-cemetery-margraten-a/46301-anderson-melvin-c

Here is a link to a site which lists former MIA from the wars whose remains were identified this year.

http://www.pownetwork.org/remret2.htm

There are still over 70,000 service men and women that are unaccounted for from just WWII alone.

[tonyt53]

1. May he continue to rest in peace. He deserves it.

[democrank]

2. K & R

Thanks for posting this, Kaleva.

[Kaleva]

3. Whe reading about some of these men, I felt like I did when visiting the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

[Aristus]

4. The tank destroyer was a terrible idea, and it cost a lot of lives.

The TD looked like a tank, but it wasn't. It has a large gun for taking on enemy tanks, but was very lightly armored and lack overhead protection for the crew. The light weight was its only real defense; the idea being to make it fast and nimble enough to evade enemy fire.

At the time, there were several different varieties of tanks, for reconnaissance, for quick breakthroughs of enemy lines, and to support infantry on the ground. But by and large, the tank's main job was believed to be infantry support. American tanks for this role were usually given a medium-strength armor suite and a medium-range, low-velocity gun. The M4 Sherman is the best example of this.

It was a good infantry support weapon, but it was terrible for going head-to-head with enemy tanks. As both tanks and tank destroyers were knocked out by enemy armor in huge numbers during the war, designers began to take the features of the TD and graft them on to the tank, creating an good infantry support vehicle that could theoretically take on enemy tanks, as well. This lead to the Main Battle Tank concept we have today.

But a lot of men died because because of that disastrous misunderstanding of the role of armor on the battlefield.

[Kaleva]

5. The lightweight allowed it to carry a gun big enough to knock out Panthers and Tigers

It was cheaper to build and easier to maintain then the Pershing and more of them could be sent transported overseas then Pershings. Sometimes quantity is a quality all of its own.

The Sherman was inferior to the Panther but we had lots of them. Even the celebrated T34/85 was a death trap for its crew and was built just well enough to fight in 1 or maybe 2 battles before being knocked out or breaking down.

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. TDs actually had a very high kill ratio

and comparatively low losses.

[Aristus]

7. Both of these views are valid, and I respect them.

Unfortunately, despite the success of the tank destroyer on the battlefield, the TD program diverted resources away from tank development, resulting in the mediocre Sherman as the go-to tank in our arsenal until the final months of the war.

Now, the Sherman was very reliable mechanically, and easy to manufacture in staggering numbers. But still, the fielding of a tank superior to the Sherman, the Pershing ( not without it's own developmental problems, of course ), was pushed back until its presence on the battlefield was obviated by the dwindling numbers of superior German tanks.

There's a reason why tank destroyers and their development didn't survive the war.

[denbot]

8. I had never heard of Tank Destroyers before.

Wow, that had to be dicey. Thin skinned and hunting battle tanks.

[Kaleva]

9. An enemy soldier hiding in cover armed with a grenade could take out the crew