- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Thought it deserved its own thread: History photos (colored pre-war Nazi photos)
Posted on 5/1/15 at 3:33 pm to TigerPanzer
Posted on 5/1/15 at 3:33 pm to TigerPanzer
quote:
Had no machine gun if I recall correctly, leaving it completely unprotected against attacks by individual soldiers. WTF?
OK, back at my desk now. Here's a picture of an early Ferdinand at the Battle of Kursk...
As you can see, no bow MG and it's paid the price for this glaring oversight on the Germans' part.
And here's another similar example...
but in their defense, the Germans were not the only ones to have massive "assault guns" that lacked any defense against infantry tank killing teams. The Soviets had their own, the SU-152....
They did have the ability to mount a heavy 12.7mm machine gun but from what I've seen this was rarely done.
2
Posted on 5/1/15 at 3:37 pm to tiggerthetooth
Utopia
Posted on 5/1/15 at 3:39 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
As you can see, no bow MG and it's paid the price for this glaring oversight on the Germans' part.
Dummkopfs!
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:03 am to RogerTheShrubber
Remember that Star Trek episode when Spock and Kirk had to dress up like Nazis?
That was cool. Also in color.
Also, I don't know why people would think that the German Tiger I or Panther tanks were almost impossible to repair in the field. That's not true. As long as the tank could be reached by a field repair unit, it could be fixed, unless we are talking about a tank blown up in combat.
The Germans did a GREAT job of repairing their tanks in the field and getting them back into action. Carius's Tiger I is a great example. He did a great job of keeping his Tiger I in good repair and in action.
Finally, the Soviet T34 was a simple design, but, that doesn't mean that it was reliable. In fact, it had a bad reputation for breaking down fairly often. The transmission was weak point. I'd also bet that the Germans were better at field repairs than were the Soviets.
BUT, the US Sherman tank might have been more reliable than any of the German or Soviet tanks. Compared to the Sherman, the German tanks were over-engineered and more difficult to repair than they should have been.
LINK
That was cool. Also in color.
Also, I don't know why people would think that the German Tiger I or Panther tanks were almost impossible to repair in the field. That's not true. As long as the tank could be reached by a field repair unit, it could be fixed, unless we are talking about a tank blown up in combat.
The Germans did a GREAT job of repairing their tanks in the field and getting them back into action. Carius's Tiger I is a great example. He did a great job of keeping his Tiger I in good repair and in action.
Finally, the Soviet T34 was a simple design, but, that doesn't mean that it was reliable. In fact, it had a bad reputation for breaking down fairly often. The transmission was weak point. I'd also bet that the Germans were better at field repairs than were the Soviets.
BUT, the US Sherman tank might have been more reliable than any of the German or Soviet tanks. Compared to the Sherman, the German tanks were over-engineered and more difficult to repair than they should have been.
LINK
This post was edited on 5/4/15 at 12:21 am
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
They did have the ability to mount a heavy 12.7mm machine gun but from what I've seen this was rarely done.
As you know, Darth, one problem with cutting a hole into an armor plate in order to create a machine gun port is that cutting that hole creates a weak point in that armor.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 10:50 am to marie antoinette
Going back to Germany in the mid 1930's would be fine as long as you were not Jewish, a gypsy, a communist, an ardent Christian, Polish, or disabled, mentally or physically, in any way. None of those folks found him to be particularly fascinating.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:05 am to Champagne
quote:
As you know, Darth, one problem with cutting a hole into an armor plate in order to create a machine gun port is that cutting that hole creates a weak point in that armor.
Quite true. But in the case of the SU-152, the 12.7mm MG was mounted on top at the commander's hatch.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 11:45 am to Darth_Vader
And, as we know, most WW2 tanks and assault guns had a coaxial MG and a bow mounted MG. The post WW2 tank designs moved somewhat away from the bow MGs due to this stuctural weakness. It seems that this structural weakness was a lesson learned from WW2. You can speak more to that with your experience in the US Army armor forces.
The late war and post war tank designs placed the drive sprocket in the rear instead of the front. This was a good idea that provided more protection for the drive sprocket.
Tank design evolved rapidly in WW2, but, in the summer of 1950, the North Korean Army invaded with an infantry army and only 150 T-34/85 tanks.
The T-34/85 dated from 1944 and was obsolete by 1950.
Even so, throughout the summer of 1950, the first US ground troops sent to fight in Korea had great difficulty defeating the T-34/85, because their bazookas and anti-tank guns were even more obsolete than the T-34/85.
This was remedied by winter, 1950.
Seems like the start of the Korean War in 1950 triggered a new race to evolve the Tank.
The late war and post war tank designs placed the drive sprocket in the rear instead of the front. This was a good idea that provided more protection for the drive sprocket.
Tank design evolved rapidly in WW2, but, in the summer of 1950, the North Korean Army invaded with an infantry army and only 150 T-34/85 tanks.
The T-34/85 dated from 1944 and was obsolete by 1950.
Even so, throughout the summer of 1950, the first US ground troops sent to fight in Korea had great difficulty defeating the T-34/85, because their bazookas and anti-tank guns were even more obsolete than the T-34/85.
This was remedied by winter, 1950.
Seems like the start of the Korean War in 1950 triggered a new race to evolve the Tank.
This post was edited on 5/4/15 at 11:58 am
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:01 pm to Champagne
quote:
And, as we know, most WW2 tanks and assault guns had a coaxial MG and a bow mounted MG. The post WW2 tank designs moved somewhat away from the bow MGs due to this stuctural weakness. It seems that this structural weakness was a lesson learned from WW2.
True. I believe the M26 was the last American tank to have a bow gun.
I believe the end of the bow gun, at least for American tanks, came about for two reasons
1. Moving the radio maintainer responsibility to the loader, thus eliminating the need for that fifth crew member.
2. Realizing that the coax MG fired from the gunner's position was actually far more effective at engaging infantry targets.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:14 pm to Champagne
quote:
Tank design evolved rapidly in WW2, but, in the summer of 1950, the North Korean Army invaded with an infantry army and only 150 T-34/85 tanks.
The T-34/85 dated from 1944 and was obsolete by 1950.
Even so, throughout the summer of 1950, the first US ground troops sent to fight in Korea had great difficulty defeating the T-34/85, because their bazookas and anti-tank guns were even more obsolete than the T-34/85.
This was remedied by winter, 1950.
Seems like the start of the Korean War in 1950 triggered a new race to evolve the Tank.
Good points. In the opening phase of the Korean war our forces lacked any real anti-tank capability other than a few towed antitank guns and bazookas. Even in WWII the Bazooka was a poor antitank weapon. Against the well sloped armor of the T34-85's, it was virtually useless.
Once the U.S. started bringing in reinforcements, the main tanks they brought were an updated version of the M4 Sherman named the M4A3E8, nicknamed the "Easy Eight".
It had better armor and a better gun than the old Shermans and made a good account of itself. This was the most common American tank of the war.
Then there was the M26 Pershing.
This tank ws developed and deployed late in WWII, seeing limited action against the Germans. It was initally classified as a "heavy" tank and could go toe to toe with tanks like the German Tiger or Soviet IS-2. In Korea, it totally outclassed the Soviet T-34-85s it encountered.
The last of the three main Americna tanks was the light M41 Walker Bulldog.
It only came out very late in the war once the fighting had settled into static trench warfare and thus it saw very limited action.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:38 pm to Darth_Vader
'MERICA frick yea. you mess with the bull you get the horns 
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:41 pm to tiggerthetooth
love these, so many films and photos are in black and white, something about color makes it easier to imagine the times.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:58 pm to SM6
Can't imagine what it was like in those tanks in the middle of a battle. My Uncle O.E. was in one at the Zeppelinfeld 22 days before the Swastika was demolished.
He'd rarely ever talk about his time in the war, but we had some of the pictures and articles.
He'd rarely ever talk about his time in the war, but we had some of the pictures and articles.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 12:59 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
In the opening phase of the Korean war our forces lacked any real anti-tank capability other than a few towed antitank guns and bazookas. Even in WWII the Bazooka was a poor antitank weapon. Against the well sloped armor of the T34-85's, it was virtually useless.
Task Force Smith and the other US ground forces facing North Korean armor in the summer of 1950 were armed with the 57mm anti tank gun and the 2.36 inch "bazooka". The 57mm AT gun wasn't bad at close range vs. a T34/85, but there weren't many of them. The 2.36 inch bazooka could destroy a T34/85 with a rear shot or side hull shot, but, still, it was virtually useless.
Some of Task Force Smith's bazooka rounds may have been duds! Shots into T24 rear engine compartments were reported to have failed to knock out the enemy tank. These shots must have been misses or duds, I think, because even a 2.36 bazooka HEAT round would be effective against the lightly armored rear engine compartment of a T34.
By winter 1950 the new, more powerful bazooka made the scene, and this super bazooka could handle a T34/85.
The Sherman Easy Eight saw extensive action with US armor forces during late 44 and 45.
The Sherman in the photo that you provided that's crewed by US Second Infantry Division personnel appears to lack a bow mounted MG. I wonder if it had been removed in a modification to improve the front hull armor's strength?
This post was edited on 5/4/15 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 5/4/15 at 1:04 pm to Rebelgator
"Gunter, I specifically said I wanted a four door. Now we're just going have to kill you."
Posted on 5/4/15 at 1:05 pm to Champagne
Danwl
your uncle was a straight up bad arse
your uncle was a straight up bad arse
Posted on 5/4/15 at 1:24 pm to Champagne
quote:
The Sherman in the photo that you provided that's crewed by US Second Infantry Division personnel appears to lack a bow mounted MG. I wonder if it had been removed in a modification to improve the front hull armor's strength?
I've never seen a Sherman without a bow gun port. Even the last modifications by the Israelis of the Sherman (the "Super Shermans") had the bow gun.
I think what you're seeing in the picture of the 2nd ID Sherman above is the bow gun is blocked from view by the ammo cans secured to the front slope of the hull.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 1:57 pm to Darth_Vader
Yeah, those ammo cans on the front of the Sherman are very cool.
I think that might be .50 cal ammo for the .50 on the turret. Looks like too much fun shooting all that .50 ammo.
I think that might be .50 cal ammo for the .50 on the turret. Looks like too much fun shooting all that .50 ammo.
Posted on 5/4/15 at 2:03 pm to Champagne
quote:
Yeah, those ammo cans on the front of the Sherman are very cool.
I think that might be .50 cal ammo for the .50 on the turret. Looks like too much fun shooting all that .50 ammo.
Not going to lie. Firing a .50 cal will give you at least a semi-chubby.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News