295 replies to this topic

[Bronezhilet]

Lethalhavoc, on Sep 03 2016 - 21:35, said:

You ever hear of a Stuka or an HE-111? Also no one said it was returning to base with a bomb load.

You might also want to look up the bomb types used in WWII.

There are only a few ways a bomb could have hit the engine deck on the place where the detonation was. An attack from the side, or an attack from behind, simply because bombs don't fall straight down but at an angle. A bomb coming from the front would hit the turret instead. Flying your approach over a length of enemy lines isn't smart since you show yourself to way more enemy fire than by a frontal attack. Attacking from the rear isn't smart either because you have to cross over enemy lines/territory to start your bombing run. Which is kinda safer when done above friendly territory. A plane returning from a mission behind the front line would, if he could not reach his primary, secondary etc targets as soon as possible since returning with a bomb load will impede plane performance but is also dangerous to do. You don't land with bombs anyway, so why carry them to friendly territory if you can dumb them over enemy territory? And no, bombers don't have the time nor intel to go look for tanks. 

 

Also, why would a HE-111 target tanks?

 

Block Quote

It could have very easily been destroyed in the initial stages of the battle, which means that it was on the front line.

Remember that this tank was first knocked out by the Germans who over run these positions, and then over ran again by the Americans who took them back.

The debate was over what caused the damage. When doing that, the time is irrelevant. I look for various different things to determine what caused the damage. For all I care, the Americans could have blown it up because they wanted to. Or the Germans wanted to have fun and blew it up after they knocked it out. I don't care, I'm just looking for what caused the damage.

 

Block Quote

 The armor on that Sherman as already noted in previous posts, state that it was near the first, if not the first vehicle made. So the quality of the welds are also in dispute.

And why would the quality of the welds be in dispute, actually?

 

Block Quote

 So a 155mm arty round could well have done that damage. The armor on a Shermans engine deck is how thick exactly? 10mm? So is that enough to stop an artillery shell?

Engine deck is 19 mm. Depends. It would stop a 105 mm, probably not a 155 mm. But then again, getting the shell to where the point of detonation is would be tricky since there would be a turret in the way of the shell.

And even if you do manage to place a hit and penetrate, the damage would still look different, since there would be a pretty significant hole in the armour. Which would have an effect on the pressures, shock waves, etc. The damage simply would not have looked the same.

 

Block Quote

You also didn't answer my question of, where would you have placed the demo charge? Engine compartment, or crew compartment?

You also didn't answer my question of, if this tank had already suffered an ammo explosion that was sufficient to destroy the fighting compartment and remove the turret, would you feel the need to place a demo charge on it?

Why is this relevant? You want to blow up a tank for yourself or something? I'm willing to give up a lot of information and knowledge, but the knowledge on how to best blow up things isn't one of them.

 

 

Also, coming back to your first few sentences, could you stop being so condescending? Thanks.

[Lethalhavoc]

Bronezhilet, on Sep 03 2016 - 22:12, said:

There are only a few ways a bomb could have hit the engine deck on the place where the detonation was. An attack from the side, or an attack from behind, simply because bombs don't fall straight down but at an angle. A bomb coming from the front would hit the turret instead. Flying your approach over a length of enemy lines isn't smart since you show yourself to way more enemy fire than by a frontal attack. Attacking from the rear isn't smart either because you have to cross over enemy lines/territory to start your bombing run. Which is kinda safer when done above friendly territory. A plane returning from a mission behind the front line would, if he could not reach his primary, secondary etc targets as soon as possible since returning with a bomb load will impede plane performance but is also dangerous to do. You don't land with bombs anyway, so why carry them to friendly territory if you can dumb them over enemy territory? And no, bombers don't have the time nor intel to go look for tanks.

 

Also, why would a HE-111 target tanks?

 

The debate was over what caused the damage. When doing that, the time is irrelevant. I look for various different things to determine what caused the damage. For all I care, the Americans could have blown it up because they wanted to. Or the Germans wanted to have fun and blew it up after they knocked it out. I don't care, I'm just looking for what caused the damage.

 

And why would the quality of the welds be in dispute, actually?

 

Engine deck is 19 mm. Depends. It would stop a 105 mm, probably not a 155 mm. But then again, getting the shell to where the point of detonation is would be tricky since there would be a turret in the way of the shell.

And even if you do manage to place a hit and penetrate, the damage would still look different, since there would be a pretty significant hole in the armour. Which would have an effect on the pressures, shock waves, etc. The damage simply would not have looked the same.

 

Why is this relevant? You want to blow up a tank for yourself or something? I'm willing to give up a lot of information and knowledge, but the knowledge on how to best blow up things isn't one of them.

 

 

Also, coming back to your first few sentences, could you stop being so condescending? Thanks.

 

Why would HE-111's attack tanks? Seriously? You're going to ask that?

So you know nothing about the DAK I see?

If it was a bomb there are a number of angles that it could have struck from. There is NO WAY you or I or anyone else for that matter can tell from that single photograph.

 

The welds are pretty important, since poor or INCOMPLETE welds, would mean less explosive force was needed to cause the damage.

You'll also note that you can see that the peel is exclusively on the weld seams and that the seams are still straight.

 

Once again, i'll ask you both of the above questions.

Where would you have placed the demo charge? Engine compartment, or crew compartment?

And if this tank had already suffered an ammo explosion that was sufficient to destroy the fighting compartment and remove the turret, would you feel the need to place a demo charge on it?

 

If you cannot understand the relevance of these questions any further debate with you is pointless.

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 03 2016 - 22:29.

[Bronezhilet]

Lethalhavoc, on Sep 03 2016 - 22:24, said:

Why would HE-111's attack tanks? Seriously? You're going to ask that?

So you know nothing about the DAK I see?

Well, since you're apparently going to be condescending again: Care to elaborate?

 

Block Quote

 The welds are pretty important, since poor or IMCOMPLETE welds, would mean less explosive force was needed to cause the damage.

You'll also note that you can see that the peel is exclusively on the weld seams.

 Of course, that makes perfect sense. It's because even with perfect welds they're always weak points of armour, especially against tension. it's simply due to the way welds work. When something is welded, the hardening in the plates is removed at the weld. To have the welds have the same strength as the armour plates you have to heat treat the completed hull. Which is simply not feasible. 

 

Block Quote

Once again, i'll ask you both of the above questions.

Where would you have placed the demo charge? Engine compartment, or crew compartment?

And if this tank had already suffered an ammo explosion that was sufficient to destroy the fighting compartment and remove the turret, would you feel the need to place a demo charge on it?

 

If you cannot understand the relevance of these questions any further debate with you is pointless.

Please elaborate on why this is relevant. The question was about what caused the damage, not about where to best place a demolition charge.

 

 

Anyway, would you mind giving your reasons on why this damage was caused by bombs or artillery, based on the damage itself?

[Lethalhavoc]

Bronezhilet, on Sep 03 2016 - 22:52, said:

Well, since you're apparently going to be condescending again: Care to elaborate?

 

 Of course, that makes perfect sense. It's because even with perfect welds they're always weak points of armour, especially against tension. it's simply due to the way welds work. When something is welded, the hardening in the plates is removed at the weld. To have the welds have the same strength as the armour plates you have to heat treat the completed hull. Which is simply not feasible.

 

Please elaborate on why this is relevant. The question was about what caused the damage, not about where to best place a demolition charge.

 

 

Anyway, would you mind giving your reasons on why this damage was caused by bombs or artillery, based on the damage itself?

 

The DAK where ever possible used low level HE-111 and Stukas as close support. They called the tactic "blitzkrieg". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

It was refined by Rommel and the HE-111's would not just bomb targets currently engaged by ground forces, but continue to strafe them as well.

 

A properly welded seam is just as strong as the surrounding metal, without heat treatment. Provided that the correct welding rods and techniques are used.

I'm not sure where you got your information about welds from.... If the weld had weakened the plate, it would have torn at the seam.

So if the welds were any good at all, the seam should have been bowed at least slightly, which they aren't.

 

Once again, since you don't seem to know the history of the DAK, you're having issues understanding the "why" of the situation.

The DAK was supply starved since nearly the beginning of it's history. Nearly every captured weapon that could be used by the DAK, was.

The DAK had used most of their explosives mining and blocking the roads used by the British as a delaying tactic.

 

So put yourself in the shoes of a German combat engineer, fighting on the US front. You have nearly no explosives at your disposal. The little you have are not something you're going to waste on a target that's already destroyed.

Seeing that the .50 cal is still left on the turret, it means that the ammo explosion most likely happened during the battle or it would have been taken by the Germans (just like all the other ones).

Unless of course that all of the damage happened at the same time. Meaning either a bomb hit or possibly an arty hit. But, it is even possible that a demo charge was laid during the battle, by some brave sapper.

 

So my argument is that none of us, can really know what happened.

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 03 2016 - 23:56.

[mrmojo]

Bronezhilet, on Sep 04 2016 - 02:52, said:

 

 

Lets take a look at another picture posted here:

Somebody in this topic suggested this damage was caused by a mine. This is incorrect. It's a combination of various things.

 

The bulge on the sponson and peeled back top armour is definitely caused by a demolition charge, while the suspension damage is the cause of a mine. Why both?

Well, if it was just a demolition charge, there would be no significant crater, while there obviously is. It wouldn't damage tracks on both sides either, because the demolition charge was placed on the right side of the tank, behind the bit that's up-armoured. It wasn't a huge mine either, since the hull sides are still intact. If the mine was capable of peeling back the top armour and bulging the sponson side armour, it would definitely damage the lower hull side armour. But it didn't.

While a demolition charge in the sponson would be capable of blowing out the sponson bottom and damaging the suspension, it wouldn't be capable of creating a crater, since it's effectively an airborne detonation. Which is physically incapable of creating a semi-deep crater. Only explosions occuring in the ground create craters big enough for a Sherman suspension unit to fit in.

 

The demolition charge was placed behind that uparmoured section under the turret ring because, unless I'm very mistaken, that's where part of the ammunition was stored. This is most likely a smaller charge than the other one, but it was placed to cause an ammorack explosion. So basically the tank was rendered immobile by a mine and subsequently completely destroyed by blowing up the ammorack with the use of a demolition charge.

 

 

 

 

I don't know how this tank was destroyed, hence why I wrote "mine?"

 

 

 

[Walter_Sobchak]

Lethalhavoc, on Sep 03 2016 - 17:21, said:

 

The DAK where ever possible used low level HE-111 and Stukas as close support. They called the tactic "blitzkrieg". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

It was refined by Rommel and the HE-111's would not just bomb targets currently engaged by ground forces, but continue to strafe them as well.

 

 

  They called it no such thing.  "Blitzkrieg" was a propaganda term, not a military doctrine.  Please read the entire wiki entry you linked to:

 

Despite its ubiquity in German and British journalism during World War II, Blitzkrieg was practically never used as official military terminology of the Wehrmacht during the war.[9] Some senior officers, including Kurt Student, Franz Halder and Johann Adolf von Kielmansegg, even disputed the idea that it was a military concept. Kielmansegg asserted that what many regarded as blitzkrieg was nothing more than "ad hoc solutions that simply popped out of the prevailing situation". Student described it as ideas that "naturally emerged from the existing circumstances" as a response to operational challenges.[11] The Wehrmacht never officially adopted it as a concept or doctrine.[a] In 2005, Karl-Heinz Frieser summarized blitzkrieg as simply the result of German commanders using the latest technology in the most beneficial way according to traditional military principles and employing "the right units in the right place at the right time".[12] Modern historians now understand blitzkrieg as the outcome of the rejuvenation of the traditional German military principles, methods and doctrines of the 19th century with the latest weapon systems of the interwar period.[13]

 

 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

It's a Soviet M4A2, fairly late production, damaged by a mine and blown up with high explosives to prevent it's recovering by the Russians. HE-111 has nothing to do with it.

 

Jesus, I would say mental gymnastics to come up with this was amusing, but mental implies a brain, and the op doesn't have the required gear.  

Edited by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, Sep 04 2016 - 15:59.

[Lethalhavoc]

Walter_Sobchak, on Sep 04 2016 - 14:58, said:

 

  They called it no such thing.  "Blitzkrieg" was a propaganda term, not a military doctrine.  Please read the entire wiki entry you linked to:

 

Despite its ubiquity in German and British journalism during World War II, Blitzkrieg was practically never used as official military terminology of the Wehrmacht during the war.[9] Some senior officers, including Kurt Student, Franz Halder and Johann Adolf von Kielmansegg, even disputed the idea that it was a military concept. Kielmansegg asserted that what many regarded as blitzkrieg was nothing more than "ad hoc solutions that simply popped out of the prevailing situation". Student described it as ideas that "naturally emerged from the existing circumstances" as a response to operational challenges.[11] The Wehrmacht never officially adopted it as a concept or doctrine.[a] In 2005, Karl-Heinz Frieser summarized blitzkrieg as simply the result of German commanders using the latest technology in the most beneficial way according to traditional military principles and employing "the right units in the right place at the right time".[12] Modern historians now understand blitzkrieg as the outcome of the rejuvenation of the traditional German military principles, methods and doctrines of the 19th century with the latest weapon systems of the interwar period.[13]

 

 

 

The intent of my post was to illustrate the cooperation between the different armed branches during an attack.

Which I believe the term Blitzkrieg does, or at least it should.

[Bronezhilet]

Lethalhavoc, on Sep 03 2016 - 23:21, said:

The DAK where ever possible used low level HE-111 and Stukas as close support. They called the tactic "blitzkrieg". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

It was refined by Rommel and the HE-111's would not just bomb targets currently engaged by ground forces, but continue to strafe them as well.

Using a medium bomber for CAS? Using a medium bomber with no static forward facing guns to strafe? How drunk are you, actually?

 

Block Quote

A properly welded seam is just as strong as the surrounding metal, without heat treatment. Provided that the correct welding rods and techniques are used.

I'm not sure where you got your information about welds from.... If the weld had weakened the plate, it would have torn at the seam.

So if the welds were any good at all, the seam should have been bowed at least slightly, which they aren't.

You do realise that welding removes any and all treatment in the surrounding area, right? Here, reading this will be a nice start.

 

Block Quote

 Once again, since you don't seem to know the history of the DAK, you're having issues understanding the "why" of the situation.

The DAK was supply starved since nearly the beginning of it's history. Nearly every captured weapon that could be used by the DAK, was.

The DAK had used most of their explosives mining and blocking the roads used by the British as a delaying tactic.

 Ah yes, they were so supply starved they used freaking medium bombers in the most dangerous and wasteful way ever.

 

Also, source, source and source.

 

Block Quote

So put yourself in the shoes of a German combat engineer, fighting on the US front. You have nearly no explosives at your disposal. The little you have are not something you're going to waste on a target that's already destroyed.

Seeing that the .50 cal is still left on the turret, it means that the ammo explosion most likely happened during the battle or it would have been taken by the Germans (just like all the other ones).

Unless of course that all of the damage happened at the same time. Meaning either a bomb hit or possibly an arty hit. But, it is even possible that a demo charge was laid during the battle, by some brave sapper.

The question was what caused that damage. I determined that based on the photo.

But apparently evidence from a photo isn't enough, because of an hypothetical situation thought up by a random WoT player. Oookay.

 

So if it was a bomb, where's the evidence of fragmentation? You're not going to tell me that hypothetically speaking, chunks of steel flying around at speeds of several kilometers per second somehow missed every part in the photo, are you?

 

Here, have fun finding fragmentation damage on these photos of the same tank:

[boxtosser]

mrmojo, on Sep 01 2016 - 10:55, said:

 

 

*coughs*

 

Okinawa, 1945. The price of victory. A 6th Tank Bn M4A3 burns after being destroyed by a Japanese IED. The entire crew perished aboard their vehicle in this incident.

A Marine attempts to fight the fire with a fire bottle. Each tank carried two of these onboard, one in the turret, and one in the driver's compartment. Still image from USMC combat camera film

 

The Sherman had two fixed 10 pound CO fire extinguishers that could be triggered from inside the tank, and outside if you knew where the pull handles were. They also provided the crew with 2, four pound, CO fire extinguishers, on mounted on a bracket on the right side of the transmission, and the other mounted on the rear of the turret basket. (jeepy's website: http://www.theshermantank.com/category/sherman/ - not bad.)

 

 

 

I would assume fire extinguishers were standard equipment on most nations' military vehicles?  Surely it would be not atrociously difficult for an American soldier to get his hands on a fire extinguisher from, say, a halftrack, jeep, or truck, given that the US Army was one of the most highly motorized/mechanized combatants of the entire war. 

Edited by boxtosser, Sep 05 2016 - 17:51.

[Lethalhavoc]

Bronezhilet, on Sep 05 2016 - 08:11, said:

Using a medium bomber for CAS? Using a medium bomber with no static forward facing guns to strafe? How drunk are you, actually?

 

You do realise that welding removes any and all treatment in the surrounding area, right? Here, reading this will be a nice start.

 

 Ah yes, they were so supply starved they used freaking medium bombers in the most dangerous and wasteful way ever.

 

Also, source, source and source.

 

The question was what caused that damage. I determined that based on the photo.

But apparently evidence from a photo isn't enough, because of an hypothetical situation thought up by a random WoT player. Oookay.

 

So if it was a bomb, where's the evidence of fragmentation? You're not going to tell me that hypothetically speaking, chunks of steel flying around at speeds of several kilometers per second somehow missed every part in the photo, are you?

 

Here, have fun finding fragmentation damage on these photos of the same tank:

 

Sigh, why must you make such obviously incorrect statements?

Please take 2 seconds out of your busy life and look up the HE-111, you will notice that it does have a forward machine gun.

Since you can't even grasp the machinegun concept, I doubt you will ever grasp the close air support concept either and the DAK's need to press every available asset into battle.

If the steel was weakened by the welds, the welding tabs would be ROUNDED and not squared. Correct? Since if they were weakened and the corners receiving more heat then the straight edges?

For your argument on that to be valid, they would have to be ROUND, do you understand?

This is far more likely, they used of the wrong welding rod/wire which makes the welds brittle. Which is hardly a surprise considering it was a transition vehicle, from Lee/Grant rivets to M4 welds.

 

Lastly, I stated that no one, not you, or I, or anyone else could truly determine the cause of the damage by the ONE photograph.

Kudos, you've now went out and found 3 more photographs and a cause can be determined.

And even though it baffles the imagination at the waste of resources, it does appear to be a demo charge.

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 06 2016 - 00:41.

[WulfeHound]

>using a medium bomber with a single flexible 8mm MG in the nose as CAS

>says it's feasible

 

Do you realize the absurdity of that statement? A single MG is not enough for being an effective strafer. That's why Douglas and North American had solid nose versions of their A-26 and B-25 bombers which had a minimum of 8-10 .50cals.

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 00:53, said:

>using a medium bomber with a single flexible 8mm MG in the nose as CAS

>says it's feasible

 

Do you realize the absurdity of that statement? A single MG is not enough for being an effective strafer. That's why Douglas and North American had solid nose versions of their A-26 and B-25 bombers which had a minimum of 8-10 .50cals.

 

For the love of God, they didn't just use the 1 bloodly machinegun!

On top of that we seem to be completely ignoring their bomb loads.

 

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 06 2016 - 01:04.

[WulfeHound]

Lethalhavoc, on Sep 05 2016 - 18:58, said:

 

For the love of God, they didn't just use the 1 bloodly machinegun!

On top of that we seem to be completely ignoring their bomb loads.

 

 

You seem to be ignoring the absurdity of using a medium bomber with a weak defensive armament and payload such as the He-111 in a role it was never meant to do

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 01:06, said:

 

You seem to be ignoring the absurdity of using a medium bomber with a weak defensive armament and payload such as the He-111 in a role it was never meant to do

 

They used what they had.

There was no radar at the time, and the bombers could do the job. Added to their bombs and machineguns was the phycological effect that being bombed and strafed while under attack from ground forces had.

In Africa and Sicily the Germans used any and all combat aircraft in this role.

[WulfeHound]

Do you have any sources to back up your claim? I'm asking because it's hilarious waste of a medium bomber like the He-111. Now a solid nosed Ju-88 on the other hand, that would be slightly better since it's got more than just a single 8mm MG.

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 01:15, said:

Do you have any sources to back up your claim? I'm asking because it's hilarious waste of a medium bomber like the He-111. Now a solid nosed Ju-88 on the other hand, that would be slightly better since it's got more than just a single 8mm MG.

 

They used 87's and 88's and 110's and 109's and 111's.

They used all at their disposal, remember that there was NO RADAR, so they could make repeated attacks and escape, if they didn't get shot down by ground fire or caught by a lucky air patrol.

In the cases of supporting ground attacks, most of the enemy fire was not directed at them in the first place.

 

This isn't the Battle of Britain, where waves of allied fighters were waiting for them.

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 06 2016 - 01:23.

[WulfeHound]

I asked for a source, not the same statement repeated

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 01:25, said:

I asked for a source, not the same statement repeated

 

Go work for it Wulf.

Bronezhilet, took up this debate for you when you walked away. So put in some work.

[WulfeHound]

Do you know this saying: "the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim"

 

Prove your claim, because right now I don't believe you at all.