|
spectralent posted:In general hilarious stories about loving up tanks would be great. There's stories of at least one Polish cavalry trooper getting alongside a tank with his horse and getting a grenade onto the engine deck.
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
I saw an Abrams get hit by an EFP IED. It knocked a track off and disabled it, then like 3 or 4 dudes popped out and shot it with RPGs. There was a lot of smoke and boom but afterwards the tank was just sort of sitting there, still shooting. I bet those guys were pissed, it was a pro ambush and they executed it perfectly but it was like the modern war equivalent of Homer Simpson as a boxer. edit - they recovered it and fixed it in the battalion level depot even after all that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I saw an Abrams get hit by an EFP IED. It knocked a track off and disabled it, then like 3 or 4 dudes popped out and shot it with RPGs. There was a lot of smoke and boom but afterwards the tank was just sort of sitting there, still shooting. I bet those guys were pissed, it was a pro ambush and they executed it perfectly but it was like the modern war equivalent of Homer Simpson as a boxer. I bet the Iraqis who peppered a Challenger 2 with 70 RPG rounds must have been wondering what the gently caress was going on by the end of it. I wonder if they all got killed or just turned around, shrugged at each other and walked off.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:There's stories of at least one Polish cavalry trooper getting alongside a tank with his horse and getting a grenade onto the engine deck.  I read about how Polish "charges" on tanks were actually a defensive measure because most tanks had lovely turret traverse and if you could get behind the hull you were basically safe, but that sounds like one of those back-justifying things to explain myths.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Hilarious stories about military gently caress ups are my favorite part of this thread, tbh.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
spectralent posted:
Polish cavalry were essentially dragoons. Horses can go a lot of places cars can't, and very fast. The Poles were not charging tanks with cavalry as a strategy
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Tankers are soft vulnerable terrified sacks of blood trapped inside a metal cage. Nenonen posted:loving Luftwaffe. I knew they had a Panzer Division but now it also dawned on me that they also had a naval squadron. And as you might guess, Hermann Göring had low quality seamen.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
It's as bad as the PLAN-AF.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Polish cavalry were essentially dragoons. Horses can go a lot of places cars can't, and very fast. The Poles were not charging tanks with cavalry as a strategy Yeah these accounts involve Polish Cavalry bumping into German formations in deep mist/fog and then charging rather than dismounting, which in the couple of instances where it happened worked really well up until the point where German armoured vehicles appeared on the scene, which the Poles had no way of knowing was going to happen given the general lack of visibility and confusion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that the Germans were also using cav as recon and mobile light infantry in that conflict as well. These guys are in Russia two years later, but it conveys the idea: 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Polish cavalry were essentially dragoons. Horses can go a lot of places cars can't, and very fast. The Poles were not charging tanks with cavalry as a strategy Or, rather, at all. There were sixteen cavalry charges conducted during the September Campaign and they are all well accounted for. None of them included tanks. I think all were successful in their original objective of destroying encountered German infantry formations, and one broke down afterwards when a bunch of armoured cars unexpectedly showed up to the scene. Cavalry charging tanks is a myth. There is, however, another, cooler myth. A legend has it that there was another, seventeenth charge, supposedly conducted by the 1st Tartar Cavalry Squadron of the 13th Vilnius Uhlan Regiment. According to the myth, they encountered a German infantry unit while trying to join up with a larger force (probably during the retreat to the Romanian Bridgehead, I cannot recall for sure). Faced with no other alternative, the squadron commander knew he had to charge to get through the German line and push on, denying them opportunity to pursue, but he did not have the time or resources to actually dispatch the German force. Hence, he ordered the unit to charge and "cut from the ear". According to the legend, this charge was not accounted for in official documents of the unit because regulations specifically outlined any and all potential goals that a charge may be undertaken for, and "forcing the enemy to go look for their ears in the tall grass" was not one of them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Polish cavalry were essentially dragoons. Horses can go a lot of places cars can't, and very fast. The Poles were not charging tanks with cavalry as a strategy It doesn't help that the traditional image of cavalry is of knights charging in with lances so of course people assume that if cavalry and tanks are on the same battlefield, of course the only way the battle could go would be a bunch of suicidal cavalry with lances trying to charge tanks head on.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Or, rather, at all. If wikipedia is to be believed it was an infantry unit waiting for their tank support to catch up. Even then when the polish cavalry charged they successfully scattered the infantry, before being caught by the tanks. Also to note cavalry units would tend to have anti tank guns since *surprise* they already have horses around and the expertise to tow them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:Hilarious stories about military gently caress ups are my favorite part of this thread, tbh. Seconded, though it's neck-and-neck with learning about lesser known conflicts or the other stuff that just plain doesn't show up in most accounts of military history. MikeCrotch posted:I bet the Iraqis who peppered a Challenger 2 with 70 RPG rounds must have been wondering what the gently caress was going on by the end of it. Even better, if memory serves the attack included pilfered (?) MILANs and at least one RPG-29. poo poo's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Well the conversation regarding cavalry charges reminded me of the the purported 'last cavalry charge' of the Italians on the eastern front, and found the following:quote:Corporal Lolli, unable to draw, as his saber was frozen in its sheath, charged holding high a hand grenade; Trumpeter Carenzi, having to handle both trumpet and pistol, shot by mistake his own horse in the head.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Well the conversation regarding cavalry charges reminded me of the the purported 'last cavalry charge' of the Italians on the eastern front, and found the following: I've done that in Red Dead Redemption.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Polish cavalry were essentially dragoons. Horses can go a lot of places cars can't, and very fast. The Poles were not charging tanks with cavalry as a strategy Next you're going to try to tell me that their submarines didn't have screen doors
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Polish cavalry were essentially dragoons. Horses can go a lot of places cars can't, and very fast. The Poles were not charging tanks with cavalry as a strategy Yeah, I know, hence why I suspect the "Cavalry charged tanks to confound their slow traverses" thing is a thing that didn't happen to explain another thing that didn't happen, rather than a thing I must assume to be fact. Tevery Best posted:Or, rather, at all. This on the other hand is dope. Soup Inspector posted:Even better, if memory serves the attack included pilfered (?) MILANs and at least one RPG-29. poo poo's ridiculous.  I thought MBTs basically couldn't have meaningful side armour anymore?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's also worth noting that the Germans were also using cav as recon and mobile light infantry in that conflict as well. The last U.S. Cavalry charge happened in 1942 during the retreat into Bataan, and the man who led it only died a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Tias posted:The 'geballte ladung' (I think it could translate to 'bundled charge?') was just this, a handful of stick grenade charges taped around one stick grenade, and bob's your uncle, fanny's your aunt, you got an anti-tank weapon. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Even better, if memory serves the attack included pilfered (?) MILANs and at least one RPG-29. poo poo's ridiculous. My recollection of accounts is that the tank was being attacked because it got stuck in a ditch and couldn't reverse out, and was unable to actually return fire for the entire encounter.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
How were the tied-on heads ignited? Was it just hoped that the blast from the central head would set the rest off?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How were the tied-on heads ignited? Was it just hoped that the blast from the central head would set the rest off? Not hoped, that's how they were detonated.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Was the Saving Private Ryan thing of 'plastic explosives in a greasy sock' as an improvised anti-tank weapon actually tried, and was it effective?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Was the Saving Private Ryan thing of 'plastic explosives in a greasy sock' as an improvised anti-tank weapon actually tried, and was it effective? Yes, real thing, yes but ask anyone and they'd prefer an AT gun.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How were the tied-on heads ignited? Was it just hoped that the blast from the central head would set the rest off? Yup. Essentially, you got one big boom (or a closely-coupled series of smaller ones) which hopefully does more damage than just a single grenade. No shaped-charge aspect, which would be much more effective but can't be cobbled together in the field as easily. This has a shaped charge, and a way to stabilize it so the loud end landed in the proper position.  Still, it's recommended for braver dudes with strong throwing arms.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
You can always bring mallet with you when you climb onto the tank and bash its machineguns until they bend.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
spectralent posted:
The Challenger 2 is pretty absurdly well armoured; I recall someone either in here or elsewhere noting that post-WWII or thereabouts British armour design prioritised armour and firepower over mobility. Discounting that, I can't tell you off-hand what angle the tank was being attacked from. Alchenar posted:My recollection of accounts is that the tank was being attacked because it got stuck in a ditch and couldn't reverse out, and was unable to actually return fire for the entire encounter. This lines up with what I remember - I was adding that it wasn't "only" RPG-7s that were involved in the attempts to destroy the tank, though the vast majority were indeed RPG-7s (I think it was only one MILAN and RPG-29 each?). At least if I remember the incident right. Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
They made that up for the film. Axle grease is thick, but it's not especially *sticky*, and it's not going to be able to bond a block of Composition B to a dirty and dusty tank wheel. The actual 'sticky bomb' was a pretty impractical British anti-tank grenade that was mainly issued to Home Guard units, due mainly to the British sense of humor. Alchenar posted:Yes, real thing, yes but ask anyone and they'd prefer an AT gun. I'm prepared to be corrected, but I sure haven't seen it in any field manual.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
I suspect the writers got the sticky bomb and the Gammon bomb confused.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:
I suspect that would be more due to the issue of HEAT warheads not properly fusing against sloped armor than anything else. I believe that issue wasn't reliably addressed until the mid fifties. The larger warhead of the 'Super Bazooka' just increased the possibility of penetration at suboptimal fusing. Soup Inspector posted:The Challenger 2 is pretty absurdly well armoured; I recall someone either in here or elsewhere noting that post-WWII or thereabouts British armour design prioritised armour and firepower over mobility. Discounting that, I can't tell you off-hand what angle the tank was being attacked from. Didn't help that they had some pretty bad engines over time *cough* Chieftain *cough*
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
spectralent posted:In general hilarious stories about loving up tanks would be great. This is the canonical example of hilarious ways to gently caress up a tank, and as a bonus is the first entry in the textbook for "why armor doesn't operate alone" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AevLyTR6lM&t=65s
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The bit that really made me I think perhaps what's being described is tanks closing range in an already active combat, which, well, would probably make you try to get the gently caress away because again those things have machineguns on them. You might technically be able to stand your ground and take them out with improvised weapons but you very probably wouldn't want to try doing that in the moment, psychologically speaking. Whereas, a bazooka or equivalent AT weapon lets you start shooting at them from a much further range, it gives you much more incentive and drive to try to resist them. If a tank starts trundling up to you spraying gunfire around and you've not got an AT weapon except a big glass grenade full of glue, you might think it best to get the gently caress out of there. If a tank starts trundling up to you and you've got this shiny new rocket launcher that they've told you works real well against tanks and works out to 100 yards, you're probably gonna give it a least a go before you try legging it. mllaneza posted:This is the canonical example of hilarious ways to gently caress up a tank, and as a bonus is the first entry in the textbook for "why armor doesn't operate alone" I love that he does the "I just scored a goal in footy" run after it explodes. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:This is the canonical example of hilarious ways to gently caress up a tank, and as a bonus is the first entry in the textbook for "why armor doesn't operate alone" Why didn't he just Fulton the tank back to Mother Base? Waste of GMP.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think perhaps what's being described is tanks closing range in an already active combat, which, well, would probably make you try to get the gently caress away because again those things have machineguns on them. I'm just amazed that he can run with stones that big. First attempt just blorps out the barrel and doesn't kill it? Go back around again!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:This is the canonical example of hilarious ways to gently caress up a tank, and as a bonus is the first entry in the textbook for "why armor doesn't operate alone" that guy has some pretty big balls
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Though I've always wondered about the video, like the first one appears to be the gun going off, not the grenade (which, incidentally, amazes me that the guy still has ears after being that close) and the second one clearly detonates something in the turret. But a grenade itself shouldn't damage a tank cannon, they're designed to take much bigger explosions. So, my best guess would be that the first grenade got hit by the shell when they fired and maybe hosed up the gun a bit or something, so they opened the breech to see what happened, then the second one rolled into the turret or the blast went out of the open breech and hit the fuel tank or something. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:57 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I would like to! But that was years ago in one of the older outdated-technology-threads. I have no idea how to find that stuff ever again. Link the thread here and maybe I can help. You learn so much new poo poo reading this thread. I hadn't ever heard about Italian jets in WWII, or that VT fuses were used already in WWII. And the EFP IEDs were also new to me. But from now on, could people please write out the alphabet soups or even link to Wikipedia when using less well known abbreviations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You can always bring mallet with you when you climb onto the tank and bash its machineguns until they bend. An acquintance of mine straight up did this with a fighter plane. She's a peace activist, and figured the best course of action was to infiltrate an air force base, and straight up trying to destroy the planes with a hammer 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You can always bring mallet with you when you climb onto the tank and bash its machineguns until they bend. You really should have posted that little comic that goes with this story. Phanatic posted:They made that up for the film. Axle grease is thick, but it's not especially *sticky*, and it's not going to be able to bond a block of Composition B to a dirty and dusty tank wheel. Home Guard weapons are really funny. The other AT grenade was a big can of HE that weighed 5 pounds(!) and could only be thrown 15 yards.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 19:12
|
|