|
so anyone know what happend to this sherman
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
I'm guessing the ammunition took a hit, or cooked off. That's pretty much the only thing that will blow a turret of a tank like that. And it kinda makes sense that the welds would fail in the back first, since the front is the armoured bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:11
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Was there any appreciable difference in performance or usefulness between the shermans with the cast hull and the ones with the welded (I think?) plate style hull? Or was it just a production change?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm guessing the ammunition took a hit, or cooked off. That's pretty much the only thing that will blow a turret of a tank like that. And it kinda makes sense that the welds would fail in the back first, since the front is the armoured bit. I'm seeing two hits to the 'wing' on our left, and daylight through two holes on the other, right about under where the turret would be. Judging from some Sherman diagrams, that's where the ready shell stowage is, so I'm guessing your ammo hit idea is spot-on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:so anyone know what happend to this sherman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnhgpVb-u5s
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Was there any appreciable difference in performance or usefulness between the shermans with the cast hull and the ones with the welded (I think?) plate style hull? Or was it just a production change? You need specially trained technicians doing the welding due high chance the atmosphere fouls the whole thing so some inert gas gets pumped directly into the welding point.If you are doing correctly there is no reason to have any kind of problem and you gain the capability to redo things (you maybe foul up something) and ease of fabrication. Casting a thing as big a tank hull can be really difficult and cumbersone so building things from stamped parts can be faster. hump day bitches! fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:so anyone know what happend to this sherman Looks like a 500lb bomb to me, possibly a FW or an exceptionally brave Stuka pilot. Could also have been a bit of friendly fire by tactical B-17s or P-47s. Here is what a German 500lb bomb improvised into a mine by retreating forces did to a Sherman:  And here is what a near miss did to a Tiger:  I've been told this is what happened when a P-47 managed to drop a bomb on target: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
In that picture of the Tiger above, would any crew be able to survive that or would spalling get them all? Not even going to ask about the Panzer IV 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Just how difficult was it to dive bomb on a tank? Did the Western Allies even dive bomb at all? If so what plane did they use the p-47?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Did the Western Allies even dive bomb at all? If so what plane did they use the p-47? The Allies were never big fans of dive-bombing, except for the USN which wanted them for obvious reasons. The Army bought a few thousand SBDs and designated them the A-24, but they didn't get a ton of service and the USAAF pretty quickly switched over to fighter-bombers. e: I think the institutional reasons for this were that the US before the war didn't see much of a need for tactical airpower because there was nobody nearby to fight on land. Most of the effort went into big bombers like the B-24 and 17 for coastal defense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
GenericRX posted:In that picture of the Tiger above, would any crew be able to survive that or would spalling get them all? Not even going to ask about the Panzer IV Seeing as how the explosion was powerful enough to tear off half of the suspension, I doubt the crew would be in very good shape.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Weren't typhoons routinely equipped with rockets for the purpose of destroying tanks and trains?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Yes, however rockets aren't that great at destroying tanks so Typhoons would overreport tank kills to a hilarious amount. Then when battlefield research went through and found out how few tanks were destroyed by rocket attack, the report was suppressed by I think bomber harris. What rocket Typhoons were great at was spooking German tank crews into bailing out unnecessarily or scoring mobility kills on tanks which weren't counted as proper kills.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Just how difficult was it to dive bomb on a tank? Did the Western Allies even dive bomb at all? If so what plane did they use the p-47? Dive bombers can be effective, but they're exceptionally vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. For naval operations during the Second World War this was a necessary compromise, since it was the only way to accurately drop a bomb on a maneuvering ship, but against smaller, more maneuverable ground targets the increase in accuracy isn't really worth the increase in vulnerability. Dive-bombing against ground targets was also eliminated by the development of new types of ground-attack weapons, such as rockets and high-caliber autocannons that could be used in level flight with relative accuracy. The US Army Air Force actually did use a dedicated dive-bomber for some time, a variant of the P-51 named the A-36 Apache, but was withdrawn from service in '44 due to the superiority of the more rugged P-47 in the ground attack role and its vulnerability to ground-fire. Edit: It's also important to note here that the most famous dive-bomber in the European theater, the Ju-87 Stuka, got absolutely murdered wherever there was even an inkling of enemy aircraft or anti-air defenses, and pretty much ceased to exist on the Eastern front after '43. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Just how difficult was it to dive bomb on a tank? Did the Western Allies even dive bomb at all? If so what plane did they use the p-47? Killing a tank with a bomb (or a rocket or a gun for that matter) was a pretty tough ask. A 500 lbs bomb had to hit within maybe 10m of a tank to have a good chance of knocking it out, so your target is a 20m circle. A true dive bomber (Stuka, SBD) could hit a target that size fairly regularly, but they had the added difficulty of identifying targets from 10,000+ ft plus they were pretty vulnerable to ground fire during both ingress and egress. Other bomb trucks (like the P-47 or the IL-2) delivered their bombs from a shallow dive and their accuracy was pretty poor during this era. The bombs obviously weren't guided and they didn't have any calculator to help them figure out when to release, so it was basically pure guesswork on the part of the pilot. The Russians came up with probably the best solution by using a gazillion primitive cluster bombs, plus they eventually mounted giant cannons on the Il-2 that were reasonably effective. The western allies never really had a reliable tank killer from the air, it was mostly a combination of a sheer number of low probability shots and effectively attacking the soft targets that resupplied the tanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Rockets are pretty great for CAS and interdiction and you can attack low and fast with them so really once their viable nobody needs a dive-bomber (except the navy).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yes, however rockets aren't that great at destroying tanks so Typhoons would overreport tank kills to a hilarious amount. Then when battlefield research went through and found out how few tanks were destroyed by rocket attack, the report was suppressed by I think bomber harris. ETA: I'd say it blew the gently caress out of a chunk of beach or made a lot of spashing but was probably more useful as a distraction. Because seriously, who WOULDN'T want to see it fire them all at once? VVVV Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
So the wikipedia page on the RP-3 rockets led me to the LCT(R). I can't imagine it was all that effective, but still, to see that thing fire. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:So the wikipedia page on the RP-3 rockets led me to the LCT(R). Holy poo poo, that's looks like a British engineer decided that the Katyusha was cool and all, but what it really needed more rockets. Probably wouldn't be able to damage the crazy bunkers the Germans built, but if I was a German soldier I would be keeping my head down until I knew for sure that there wasn't rocket-powered death screaming towards me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
I'm surprised they expected to hit even a beach-size area with reasonable concentration from a craft pitching and rolling on the channel like that. There's some irony in the number of rockets being (up to) 1066.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Right, it's been said but for all the historical props given to Stukas and dive-bombing, those things need fighter escorts and a lack of flak, the latter because you have to take a fairly predictable flight-path towards your target. The Soviets worked with Sturmoviks, the US worked with P-47s (and two-engined bombers like the Mitchell) and the RAF worked with Mosquitoes and Typhoons and roving Spitfires. No bombs, but cannons and rockets are good enough to generate mission kills against tanks and outright kills against softer targets and in return you get the flexibility of being able to strafe from many different directions and angles and you can build airframes that are faster and sturdier. The Il-2 Sturmovik was more of a dedicated bomber and so didn't fly that much faster than its contemporary dive bombers, but all those other planes flew much faster than Stukas or Japanese Vals or USN Dauntless/Helldivers
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Right, it's been said but for all the historical props given to Stukas and dive-bombing, those things need fighter escorts and a lack of flak, the latter because you have to take a fairly predictable flight-path towards your target. This is kind of related, but I know that Sturmoviks took horrendous casualties during the opening of the war due to lack of air superiority and the lack of a rear gunner, even despite the fact it was the closest thing to a flying tank any country built in WWII. Did the British have a similar problem with the Typhoon early on? I literally don't know anything about the air war prior to the Battle of Britain, so I don't know what kind of sorties they would be flying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
I imagine that the typhoon being built on the tempest airframe would've helped air-to-air survivability immensely. Unlike the stuka and Il-2 it was an actual fighter aircraft with big guns, not a light bomber/dive bomber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:This is kind of related, but I know that Sturmoviks took horrendous casualties during the opening of the war due to lack of air superiority and the lack of a rear gunner, even despite the fact it was the closest thing to a flying tank any country built in WWII. Did the British have a similar problem with the Typhoon early on? I literally don't know anything about the air war prior to the Battle of Britain, so I don't know what kind of sorties they would be flying. edit : beaten The Typhoon was designed as a high performance interceptor, much like the P-47. They just both happened to be suitable for flying ground strike as well due to ruggedness/powerful engines for silly amounts of ordnance. By the time both of them were flying those types of missions regularly the Luftwaffe's capability to deal with the Western Allies' air power was not great and getting worse. Havelock Ellis fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:This is kind of related, but I know that Sturmoviks took horrendous casualties during the opening of the war due to lack of air superiority and the lack of a rear gunner, even despite the fact it was the closest thing to a flying tank any country built in WWII. Did the British have a similar problem with the Typhoon early on? I literally don't know anything about the air war prior to the Battle of Britain, so I don't know what kind of sorties they would be flying. The Typhoon entered service in mid-1941 and the Battle of Britain was long over by then. The Typhoon did have a bunch of design / manufacturing problems, but if anything it was the only plane fast enough to compete with the FW-190 at low altitudes and by the time the Typhoon really got fleshed out in mid-1942, air superiority conditions were nowhere near what they were like in the East Front circa 1941 (and I daresay not even Aug-Sep 1940 was as bad). We would never know how badly the Typhoon would have fared if it was flying the skies over Smolensk, but if I were to make a guess I'd say the ability to fly much faster than the Il-2 would have counted for somethng.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Rockets are pretty great for CAS and interdiction and you can attack low and fast with them so really once their viable nobody needs a dive-bomber (except the navy). From Pierre Clostermanns memoirs I remember reading about how they fitted Hurricanes with rockets for attack missions at German radar installations in France. That was apparently not a great idea, since the Hurricane became even slower and less manouverable loaded down with rockets and were of limited use for what it was used for. Clostermanns memoirs are great, and especially if you want to read more about Tempests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Can anyone weigh in on just how effective AAA really was in WWII? I think I remember reading (or hearing) that it was good at dispersing bomber formations and being a general annoyance that reduced the effectiveness of bombing runs, but not really a method of reliably taking the plane down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
It depends on the context. Flak was not very effective compared to fighters/interceptors as far as stopping the Anglo-American bombing of Germany. It would not shoot down as many bombers nor would it ever cause a raid to turn back (not that interceptors ever did this either, but they got closer). Hitler went with it regardless, with the morale effect of the people on the ground being able to shoot back as ostensibly one big reason. On the other hand, radar-directed, proximity-fuzed flak from American ships versus dive/torpedo-bombing Japanese planes in the Pacific grew to be very effective. One great example is a cruiser force off Guadalcanal being attacked by a full squadron of Betty bombers in Nov-1942 and not suffering a single hit despite the lack of air cover. Attack profiles and technology matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
GenericRX posted:In that picture of the Tiger above, would any crew be able to survive that or would spalling get them all? Not even going to ask about the Panzer IV If nothing else killed them, they'd get their necks broken from flying around in tiny metal box. Tanks don't have seatbelts, and that Tiger has been flipped over with force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
It isn't like crashing a car, anyway. It might not be moving fast when it gets flipped, but 50-odd tons add a lot of digits to the (mass x velocity) equation. They'd be liquified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It depends on the context. Avoiding flak required frequent changes in heading and altitude, so you could easily argue that while flak failed to outright shoot down many aircraft, it had a significant effect on bombing accuracy, due to the maneuvering required to avoid it, and the simple fact that men getting shot at are not likely to be as effective as they would be if they were simply cruising over the target at 25,000ft, unmolested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
/\ I imagine it had a similar effect to suppressing fire on the crews, too. Get them jumpy, jittery, make them waste ammo when the interceptors arrive, make mistakes, miss the bombing target, etc. Sure, if you get a shell bursting under the wing it makes a mess of things, but that's not really a thing that happened with any reliability.Slavvy posted:It isn't like crashing a car, anyway. It might not be moving fast when it gets flipped, but 50-odd tons add a lot of digits to the (mass x velocity) equation. They'd be liquified. Would that really apply for a crew inside the tank? I wouldn't say liquefied, but they certainly got rolled around in a violent manner without restraint inside an enclosed space filled with hard edges and heavy projectiles. If they had the hatch open, the blast could have compounded this. Close enough to impart that much blast force laterally means they probably got concussed, hard. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Would that really apply for a crew inside the tank? I wouldn't say liquefied, but they certainly got rolled around in a violent manner without restraint inside an enclosed space filled with hard edges and heavy projectiles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Wow ewMrYenko posted:Avoiding flak required frequent changes in heading and altitude, so you could easily argue that while flak failed to outright shoot down many aircraft, it had a significant effect on bombing accuracy, due to the maneuvering required to avoid it, and the simple fact that men getting shot at are not likely to be as effective as they would be if they were simply cruising over the target at 25,000ft, unmolested. Didn't that just make bombers more likely to target/hit civilian structures though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
I feel sorry for the poor salvage crews that had to check to see if a badly damaged tank could be salvaged to some degree, especially if all the crew met a horrible end. The stuff they must have seen ugh. And that was nothing compared to the horrors of the 2nd World War.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I feel sorry for the poor salvage crews that had to check to see if a badly damaged tank could be salvaged to some degree, especially if all the crew met a horrible end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:55
|
|
Jesus Christ  .
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:You're sitting in a tank. Suddenly it starts rolling so hard that you don't even move until the wall hits you. Then it stops rolling, and you're still moving as fast as it was. Enjoy meeting the other wall. Liquified is probably unlikely, but the impact would probably result in a degree of splashing at least. In that first picture there were apparently some crewmen who survived but it took crews hours to dig them out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I feel sorry for the poor salvage crews that had to check to see if a badly damaged tank could be salvaged to some degree, especially if all the crew met a horrible end. A quote from a unit's priest about having to scrape the inside of a sherman with a tin cup comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
Aircraft maintenance crews went through such things too. Hosing down the inside of a B-17, or the terrible silence over the radio as a bomber makes a belly landing with a ball turret that couldn't be retracted
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 18:10
|
|