Jump to content


Pictures Damaged/Destroyed Tanks


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
107 replies to this topic

PvtMalo_ #1 Posted Feb 17 2010 - 18:14

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 399 battles
  • 531
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Post pictures of Tanks that have been Damaged or Destroyed.
Info of what happend if you are able to aswell.

http://www.ww2incolo...durchschuss.jpg

Info from WMD: The Sherman shown has been hit by a 88 which penertrated the front gone completely through and existed out the back.

GXPTG #2 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 02:15

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 6590 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
With nickname's like "Tommycoocker" and "Ronson" (cigarette lighters) it's amazing that the allies won WWII with tanks like the Sherman. They were just so out classed by nearly everything Germany had to throw at it. Course destroy a Sherman and 3 more take it's place. Ugly representation of  war of atrocity.

WMD #3 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 13:20

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12561 battles
  • 286
  • Member since:
    02-18-2010

View PostPvtMalo, on Feb 17 2010 - 18:14, said:

No further info

Further info
That picture is pretty famous since the Sherman shown has been hit by a 88 which penertrated the front gone completely through and existed out the back.

GXPTG #4 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 15:40

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 6590 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010

View PostAxelius, on Feb 18 2010 - 02:35, said:

Word you're looking for is Attrition, WWII was a war of atrocities though, but that had more to do with what Mr. Hitler and his buddies wanted to do with the Jews than the Yanks ability to pour armoured vehicles out of their factories.

Of course, the large number of losses of Shermans also meant there was never a lack of spare parts, combined with the simple construction the Allies could also maintain their forces in larger numbers.

Yep, attrition was the word. Definitely a mistake on my part.

ChrisK #5 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 17:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3507 battles
  • 166
  • [WGATX] WGATX
  • Member since:
    02-18-2010

View PostSpharv2, on Feb 18 2010 - 16:50, said:

In addition, the PzIII and PzIV had a horrible (But much easier to produce) armor layout.  Too many flat sides and unsloped armor.  The Tiger suffered from this too, seeing as how they could have gotten equivalent armor protection with a much lighter load of properly sloped armor.  They had to compensate by loading up with additional armor, which stressed the engines beyond the levels they could be reliably used at.  So basically, by using the poor armor layout, they were creating slower, less reliable tanks which runs pretty much counter to the original German tank tactics, which stressed firepower and mobility.

Good point. One of the reasons the Germans went with the flat armor layout was their use of face-hardened armor, as opposed to the homogenous steel armor used by the Allies. If I remember right this was in part due to the fact that Germany used the same armor manufacturers who made the armor for their naval vessels. The main difference between face-hardened and homogenous armors is that penetration of homogenous armor depends equally on a shell's weight and velocity, since it is more flexible, while penetration of face-hardened armor is almost entirely dependent on velocity rather than weight, since it is both harder and more brittle. One of the advantages of face-hardened armor is that angled shots are very unlikely to penetrate, much like the rounded armor predominant on Allied tanks. In my opinion, the cost, difficulty of manufacture, and angled shot traps that resulted from the use of face-hardened armorplate made it an inferior solution from a production standpoint, but it did leave individual tanks equally well protected for slightly less thickness of steel overall. On the other hand, the addition of bolt-on armor did stress the engines, as it did for Allied tanks when they had armor bolted on (particularly the Shermans in France in 1944-1945 that had steel plates, sandbags, and whatever else they could get, including bits of armor from wrecked tanks!)

PvtMalo_ #6 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 17:54

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 399 battles
  • 531
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010

View PostWMD, on Feb 18 2010 - 13:20, said:

Further info
That picture is pretty famous since the Sherman shown has been hit by a 88 which penertrated the front gone completely through and existed out the back.

Thanks for the info - also looks like it's been burning since the track rubber is no longer there

PvtMalo_ #7 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 17:56

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 399 battles
  • 531
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010

View PostCaptmoha, on Feb 18 2010 - 09:46, said:

A Matilda tank of C squadron 4th Royal Tank Regiment lies in pieces after several direct hits during the battle on 17th June 1941 at Halfaya Pass.
Posted Image


Wow a Matilda in such shape! must have been quite the action

ChrisK #8 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 17:59

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3507 battles
  • 166
  • [WGATX] WGATX
  • Member since:
    02-18-2010

View PostChemAli, on Feb 18 2010 - 17:48, said:

I imagined something in that nature, guess that's just another gruesome part to a war.

Because of the lack of cars (and tractors) in the Soviet Union at that time, it was very difficult to train tank drivers. The simplicity and durability of the T-34 and other tanks of that era derived from the fact that they had to be cheap (because they lost them at an alarming rate until about mid-1943) and they had to be crewed by often illiterate peasants with very little training. Germans had an extensive training program for tankers, and especially tank officers, but this hurt their ability to put out crews. Fortunately(?), this was matched by their slow tank production, which did pick up quite a bit once the national economy was mobilized, also in mid-1943 or thereabouts. The Western Allies had a much higher literacy rate and familiarity with vehicles, so that helped produce tank crews of a reasonable quality fairly quickly. I would say the Western Allies hit the right mix somewhere between Germany's emphasis on quality and the Soviet Union's emphasis on quantity.

GXPTG #9 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 18:59

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 6590 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010

View PostStronk, on Feb 18 2010 - 17:59, said:

Because of the lack of cars (and tractors) in the Soviet Union at that time, it was very difficult to train tank drivers. The simplicity and durability of the T-34 and other tanks of that era derived from the fact that they had to be cheap (because they lost them at an alarming rate until about mid-1943) and they had to be crewed by often illiterate peasants with very little training. Germans had an extensive training program for tankers, and especially tank officers, but this hurt their ability to put out crews. Fortunately(?), this was matched by their slow tank production, which did pick up quite a bit once the national economy was mobilized, also in mid-1943 or thereabouts. The Western Allies had a much higher literacy rate and familiarity with vehicles, so that helped produce tank crews of a reasonable quality fairly quickly. I would say the Western Allies hit the right mix somewhere between Germany's emphasis on quality and the Soviet Union's emphasis on quantity.

Germany learned it's lesson with the sloped armor of the T-34 that's for sure. The Panther was a fantastic tank and pretty easy to manufacturer (the armor anyway). I actually saw a (the?) Panther II at the Fort Knox Armor Museum in Kentucky. Big sucker, but not as big as the Tiger II... let alone the Maus.

Did Allied tank crews have a similar rotation off the battlefield as the pilots did? You know, complete a certain amount of missions or kills and then rotate off into a training roll? I know that's a big part of what doomed Japan during the air cmapaigns.

ChrisK #10 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 19:35

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3507 battles
  • 166
  • [WGATX] WGATX
  • Member since:
    02-18-2010

View PostGXPTG, on Feb 18 2010 - 18:59, said:

Germany learned it's lesson with the sloped armor of the T-34 that's for sure. The Panther was a fantastic tank and pretty easy to manufacturer (the armor anyway). I actually saw a (the?) Panther II at the Fort Knox Armor Museum in Kentucky. Big sucker, but not as big as the Tiger II... let alone the Maus.

Did Allied tank crews have a similar rotation off the battlefield as the pilots did? You know, complete a certain amount of missions or kills and then rotate off into a training roll? I know that's a big part of what doomed Japan during the air cmapaigns.

The Panther was like a super-T-34, but lacked the simplicity and low cost of the original, although it could certainly take it one-on-one. The PzKpfw VG Panther at the Panzermuseum in Munster, Germany, was still running the last time I was there (over 10 years ago now). Fantastic piece of work. There are several Panthers and King Tigers around in various museums, but that Panther II at Knox is the only prototype of that vehicle.

Allied tank crews didn't have a rotation policy. As far as I know, no nation did that for tank crews. Might have been a good idea in some cases.

GXPTG #11 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 22:38

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 6590 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Here's a scary one for you...

Posted Image

If I recall, it was claimed that no JagdTiger's were ever destroyed in combat. Most were disabled, ran out of gas, ran out of ammo or were scuttled. Scary.

PvtMalo_ #12 Posted Feb 18 2010 - 23:46

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 399 battles
  • 531
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Great picture

WMD #13 Posted Feb 19 2010 - 01:31

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 12561 battles
  • 286
  • Member since:
    02-18-2010

View PostGXPTG, on Feb 18 2010 - 18:59, said:

Germany learned it's lesson with the sloped armor of the T-34 that's for sure. The Panther was a fantastic tank and pretty easy to manufacturer (the armor anyway). I actually saw a (the?) Panther II at the Fort Knox Armor Museum in Kentucky. Big sucker, but not as big as the Tiger II... let alone the Maus.

Did Allied tank crews have a similar rotation off the battlefield as the pilots did? You know, complete a certain amount of missions or kills and then rotate off into a training roll? I know that's a big part of what doomed Japan during the air cmapaigns.

US used a system of battlefield "injections" rather then the german system of "refit" didnt help unit effectiveness. Especially amoungest tank crew casualties and replacements. US in fact draft Infantry men whom had civilian motor training and press them into tank corp with few hours of training on the tanks themselves before being sent into battle. The Germans training of there crews was also becomming equaly bad.

Japanese lack of both manpower and equipment probably lead them to using the same pilots without respite since they had no choice. There was also disregard for the mental welfare of troops, let alone there lives. It astonished me to learn that on Guardarcanel that they didnt even have enough rifles to equip all the men there, many were used simply as labours, rations for the men with cut in half immedately and munitons for heavy arty was scares.

PinkPanther #14 Posted Feb 19 2010 - 12:50

    Corporal

  • WG HQ Staff
  • 62 battles
  • 49
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Sherman and Tiger side by side somewhere in Italy (have no more information)
http://s39.radikal.ru/i084/1002/ae/d621aab64dd7.jpg

PinkPanther #15 Posted Feb 19 2010 - 15:43

    Corporal

  • WG HQ Staff
  • 62 battles
  • 49
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Perhaps, you are right. But the topic is about pictures of damaged and destroyed tanks :).

PvtMalo_ #16 Posted Feb 19 2010 - 21:22

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 399 battles
  • 531
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Nice find there, Pink!  Come on folks! show us some amazing pictures

Here is some Tiger pictures, pretty interesting!

Posted Image

http://img6.imagesha...677/tiger1j.jpg

Posted Image

Posted Image

ajappat #17 Posted Feb 19 2010 - 21:59

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    02-19-2010
I always liked this picture  :)
http://englishrussia...w2_color/29.jpg

PvtMalo_ #18 Posted Feb 19 2010 - 22:00

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 399 battles
  • 531
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Woah! target practise`?

ajappat #19 Posted Feb 19 2010 - 22:08

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    02-19-2010

View PostPvtMalo, on Feb 19 2010 - 22:00, said:

Woah! target practise`?
I have no idea.

PvtMalo_ #20 Posted Feb 20 2010 - 01:39

    First lieutenant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 399 battles
  • 531
  • Member since:
    02-17-2010
Enjoyed reading that




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users