In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
DEATH TRAPS
Waco Waltz
Member Posts: 10,828 ✭✭
Tanks! This has really good clear footage of the Tank battle in Koln. The American Tank commander with the leg wound did not survive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6l7sCoWX4
Comments
Tanks! This has really good clear footage of the Tank battle in Koln. The American Tank commander with the leg wound did not survive.
The hell with tanks.............and submarines.
I think the movie was the big red one. a GI on the march talking to a tank crew man about the protection of his tank , the crewman said s hell we only have 3" of armor we come in contact with a tiger tank you will think different . the GI responded well just how thick do you think this government issued shirt is ?
this has to be one of favorite lines in a movie
this has to be one of favorite lines in a movie
The movie was "To Hell and Back", and Audie Murphy spoke the words.
I understand that in WW-2 Our Tank Rounds pretty much just bounced off the German Tanks.
In 1940 Chrysler built a plant dedicated to building tanks (The Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant) which was owned by the US gov't.
quote:Originally posted by e3mrk
When You think about it The Tank was built by the lowest Bidder wsamest likely used the cheapest Steel They could find.
I understand that in WW-2 Our Tank Rounds pretty much just bounced off the German Tanks.
But Patton was right, we could and did win the war with the Sherman. If the Germans could have kept up manufacturing efforts to keep their tanks in the field the Germans might have won because of the Sherman
No, we won the war with B-17s, B-24s, and P-51s. If it hadn't been for the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign of German infrastructure, the ground forces would've never stood a chance.
Factoring in a finite amount of raw materials, fuel, etc vs that of the US, the 3rd Reich was doomed.
Germany tried to bring Britain to it's knees before the US entered the war and failed.
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But Patton was right, we could and did win the war with the Sherman. If the Germans could have kept up manufacturing efforts to keep their tanks in the field the Germans might have won because of the Sherman
No, we won the war with B-17s, B-24s, and P-51s. If it hadn't been for the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign of German infrastructure, the ground forces would've never stood a chance.
Just an FYI, adding Chromium to steel (stainless steel) increases it's ability to resist 'creep' (stress/strain) rupture at high temperatures and offers corrosion resistance, which would be needed for the 30-06 and not for the .30 Carbine.
The metallurgy that goes into a well made rifle barrel is amazing and was a (hard)lesson that Springfield learned while developing the M1903
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
If you were building for Uncle Sam you were building to his specificaitons and using only raw materials that were specified in your contract. For instance: If iceracerx and I decided to build M1 Rifles and we were lucky enough to win the contract (I could only dream) we would receive a full set of drawings along with technical and startup support for Springfield Armory (the prime contractor). The selection of machine tools and produciton equipment would be our own but that is about the extent of what we would have to say about building the M1 Rifle. Each component part we produced would have to fully intercahnge with every other M1 Rifle, be tested and complete rifles had to meet US Government specifications for accuracy. If we wanted to get paid everything had to be jsut right and we would not see a penny until US inspectors signed off on each rifle as approved. We would not be paid for producing parts; we would only get paid when the rifles go BANG and not until then! The steel used was as WD #3120 and was specific to the M1 Rifle having half the manganese content of the steel used in the M1 Carbine but containing nickel, an element that the steel used in the Carbine lacked (who the hell knows why?) Want to use some other type of steel because it was easier to obtain or cheaper? You would need a varinance from Uncle Sam and good luck getting one because "Dammit, there is a war on"!
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But Patton was right, we could and did win the war with the Sherman. If the Germans could have kept up manufacturing efforts to keep their tanks in the field the Germans might have won because of the Sherman
No, we won the war with B-17s, B-24s, and P-51s. If it hadn't been for the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign of German infrastructure, the ground forces would've never stood a chance.
SO you are suggesting they could have sent no tanks and still won? I don't know if I'd go that far in support of air power. Only in our day are planners starting to suggest wars can be won with air power alone.
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But Patton was right, we could and did win the war with the Sherman. If the Germans could have kept up manufacturing efforts to keep their tanks in the field the Germans might have won because of the Sherman
No, we won the war with B-17s, B-24s, and P-51s. If it hadn't been for the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign of German infrastructure, the ground forces would've never stood a chance.
+ mf'n 1000
And the guys that flew all the support missions.Without the Army Air Corps,none of it would have even been remotely possible.
In actual combat the Germans used much more heavily armed vehicles designed more for tank to tank contests than infantry support. This based upon their Russian experiences with the T-34 and other excellent Russian vehicles. The Brits modified the Sherman (Firefly) with a high velocity rifle which somewhat leveled the field. Still, the Sherman was no match in a one on one contest with a Panther or a Tiger.
Toward the middle to end of the war we deployed a series of highly successful tank destroyers. The M-18 (Hellcat) being a primary example. No longer designed for infantry support these vehicles were made to hunt and kill German tanks. The Hellcat was among the first Allied tank to take on truly modern design features that we still see in tanks today.
Usually seen with the link submitted above is the confrontation between the German tank that killed the Sherman and the Hellcat that went hunting for it. I believe it's safe to say that both crews knew the stakes and both were aware of the other. In any case the Hellcat placed two rounds through the Panther (as I remember). The first killed the Panther. The second was, I suspect, in retribution for the Sherman as it assured there would be little chance of any crew member surviving. No quarter given and probably none expected.
Right to left
Sherman 75mm casing
Sherman 75mm projectile
German 75mm LOW velocity (Panzer tanks)
Not shown is the German 75mm HIGH velocity (Panther tank)
German 88mm Dual Purpose (AA & AT) and Tiger 1 tank case
German 88mm projectile
German 88mm casing for the Tiger 2 tank and Elephant tank destroyer
US 90mm casing (Korean war vintage)
Right to left
Sherman 75mm casing
Sherman 75mm projectile
German 75mm LOW velocity (Panzer tanks)
Not shown is the German 75mm HIGH velocity (Panther tank)
German 88mm Dual Purpose (AA & AT) and Tiger 1 tank case
German 88mm projectile
German 88mm casing for the Tiger 2 tank and Elephant tank destroyer
US 90mm casing (Korean war vintage)
How did I know you'd have those?[;)]
Thanks for the visual!
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But Patton was right, we could and did win the war with the Sherman. If the Germans could have kept up manufacturing efforts to keep their tanks in the field the Germans might have won because of the Sherman
No, we won the war with B-17s, B-24s, and P-51s. If it hadn't been for the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign of German infrastructure, the ground forces would've never stood a chance.
We won the war with T-34 tanks and a Russian infantry that died in the millions. Even after 6 June, 1944 almost 75% of German casualties were inflicted on the Eastern Front.
In the immortal works of Sgt. Oddball:
Kelly: Well Oddball, what do you think?
Oddball: It's a wasted trip baby. Nobody said nothing about locking horns with no Tigers.
Big Joe: Hey look, you just keep them Tigers busy and we'll take care of the rest.
Oddball: The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to LET THEM SHOOT HOLES IN ME!
Brad Steele
Perhaps as we reflect on this subject it might be of some profit to remember that the Sherman was essentially conceived as an infantry support vehicle. In this capacity it served very well.
In actual combat the Germans used much more heavily armed vehicles designed more for tank to tank contests than infantry support. This based upon their Russian experiences with the T-34 and other excellent Russian vehicles. The Brits modified the Sherman (Firefly) with a high velocity rifle which somewhat leveled the field. Still, the Sherman was no match in a one on one contest with a Panther or a Tiger.
Toward the middle to end of the war we deployed a series of highly successful tank destroyers. The M-18 (Hellcat) being a primary example. No longer designed for infantry support these vehicles were made to hunt and kill German tanks. The Hellcat was among the first Allied tank to take on truly modern design features that we still see in tanks today.
Usually seen with the link submitted above is the confrontation between the German tank that killed the Sherman and the Hellcat that went hunting for it. I believe it's safe to say that both crews knew the stakes and both were aware of the other. In any case the Hellcat placed two rounds through the Panther (as I remember). The first killed the Panther. The second was, I suspect, in retribution for the Sherman as it assured there would be little chance of any crew member surviving. No quarter given and probably none expected.
If you mean the tank action in Koln Germany it was a Pershing tank that took out the panther not a Tank destroyer.
You're absolutely correct! I was thinking one thing and saying another. The Pershing was probably yet another half generation beyond the Hellcat in that we had figured out by that time that the tank destroyer was not really the answer. All the same the Hellcat was pretty impressive... 50 mph out of a tracked vehicle and a very potent rifle! Many in service to other countries twenty years after the war.
By the way... The showdown between the Pershing and the Panther certainly puts war in perspective doesn't it? Good men on both sides doing their duty. Both crews aware of the stakes. And finally the showdown where only one crew would walk away. Pretty raw!
Yup,my uncle Chris was at the Buldge.
never spoke about it,just drank a lotquote:Originally posted by gunpaq
My uncle was in a tank recovery unit in Itlay. Horrible stories and some he did not share until right before hisdeath.
One of my friends Dad was in the Buldge. He was wounded in action, he took a string of hits to his leg and hip from a German machine gun. I asked him why the Germans lost the war, he stated matter of factly that "they ran out of gas". He was certain if the Germans would of had enough fuel to run their equipment the outcome would have been different, or at the very least the war would have stretched on longer.
I remember him talking about the Tiger tank as something "you didn't want to see", which he did.
But because of speed and the fact we could make 10 of them to every panther or tiger we won.
But both Panther and Tiger were gasoline powered. Design and armor made the difference.
correction you are right, what I should have said the germans used gasoline but the shermans used a much higher octane fuel. But I still beleive a few versions utilized a diesel engine.
Have a look sometime at the inertial starter in action. No battery required, just magnetos. Sort of impressive to see a man winding up a Panther or a Tiger and actually starting these monsters.
We won the war with T-34 tanks and a Russian infantry that died in the millions. Even after 6 June, 1944 almost 75% of German casualties were inflicted on the Eastern Front.
That is right. The German war machine exhausted itself in the Russian war, long before the Normandy invasion. German casualties on the Eastern Front were enormous.
Had the Wehrmacht not bled itself white vs Russia the Normandy invasion would never have succeeded.
On top of that, the Germans were fighting resistance fighters in Norway, they were fighting in Greece, Rommel was down fighting in N. Africa, Italy bailed and they were fighting the entire length of Italy. It was Germany vs the entire world, and the Krauts still almost pulled it off.
Must have been a terrible experience to get hit by a German tank, only to see your tank go up in flames, while you're still in it. [xx(][xx(][xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But Patton was right, we could and did win the war with the Sherman. If the Germans could have kept up manufacturing efforts to keep their tanks in the field the Germans might have won because of the Sherman
No, we won the war with B-17s, B-24s, and P-51s. If it hadn't been for the USAAF's daylight bombing campaign of German infrastructure, the ground forces would've never stood a chance.
The Russians won the war. Daylight bombing really didn't have much of an effect on on anything.