Jump to content


M4 Sherman vs German 88mm Anti-Tank/Flak Gun -


  • Please log in to reply
295 replies to this topic

Lethalhavoc #161 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 19:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View Postmrmojo, on Sep 06 2016 - 18:35, said:

Not sure why you think the pilot would be telling the machine gunner in a plane what to shoot - bizarre concept...

 

Understand, this is coming from the person who didn't know what the word strafe meant.

So it's not really surprising is it?

 

And even with the welding proof video that I linked for him. It's not good enough, even though it's exactly what I described in my previous posts.


 

There's really no point continuing this discussion with him, his lack of even the most basic of DAK knowledge is too much to overcome.


Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 06 2016 - 19:05.


WulfeHound #162 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 19:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 13053 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
I think he knows what strafing is, what he finds absurd is your claim that the He 111 was used in a CAS role

Lethalhavoc #163 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 19:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 19:08, said:

I think he knows what strafing is, what he finds absurd is your claim that the He 111 was used in a CAS role

 

So I guess you don't know the meaning of the word strafe either huh?

Just because they didn't have gun cams, doesn't mean they didn't fire their MG's as they were strafing.


 

Every time, I think that you're getting good at debating, you prove me wrong.


 



WulfeHound #164 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 13053 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostLethalhavoc, on Sep 06 2016 - 13:56, said:

 

So I guess you don't know the meaning of the word strafe either huh?

Just because they didn't have gun cams, doesn't mean they didn't fire their MG's as they were strafing.


 

Every time, I think that you're getting good at debating, you prove me wrong.


 

 

I know what strafing is. Using a medium bomber with a fairly weak defensive and offensive armament in airspace filled with light AAA is a waste of a medium bomber. Even the dedicated strafing versions of the A-26 and B-25 struggled.

Lethalhavoc #165 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 20:02, said:

 

I know what strafing is. Using a medium bomber with a fairly weak defensive and offensive armament in airspace filled with light AAA is a waste of a medium bomber. Even the dedicated strafing versions of the A-26 and B-25 struggled.

 

The axis lost roughly 8,000 aircraft in the Africa/Med campaigns.

Donward #166 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

But, but, but, but, but...

 

The Germans are going to use a medium bomber to engage in close air support because that totally makes sense while it is unfathomable that a German demolition crew would use an extra brick or two of explosives, more than was needed, to destroy an enemy tank.



Lethalhavoc #167 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostDonward, on Sep 06 2016 - 20:11, said:

But, but, but, but, but...

 

The Germans are going to use a medium bomber to engage in close air support because that totally makes sense while it is unfathomable that a German demolition crew would use an extra brick or two of explosives, more than was needed, to destroy an enemy tank.

 

Obtuse huh?

The Germans used, what the Germans had.

And if you understood how supplies worked, you would consider it unfathomable too.



WulfeHound #168 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 13053 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Using a medium bomber to destroy a single tank is a waste of fuel and explosives. Putting some extra bricks of Comp B (or German equivalent) on the back of the same tank makes more sense

Lethalhavoc #169 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 20:15, said:

Using a medium bomber to destroy a single tank is a waste of fuel and explosives. Putting some extra bricks of Comp B (or German equivalent) on the back of the same tank makes more sense

 

We're not back to this are we? Back to the beginning of the circle?

For the last time. Try to understand they weren't just there for the tanks, they were there for the infantry, the arty, transports and any target of opportunity that presented itself.

They weren't over the battlefield by themselves, they attack in CONJUNTION with the ground forces.

They were there for shock and awe.


Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 06 2016 - 20:19.


Bronezhilet #170 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:20

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    02-27-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 20:15, said:

Using a medium bomber to destroy a single tank is a waste of fuel and explosives. Putting some extra bricks of Comp B (or German equivalent) on the back of the same tank makes more sense

You dont understand, Wulfe, they used the medium bombers to kill hundreds and hundreds of enemy tanks in a CAS role, with nobody ever noticing any medium bomber in a CAS role. The Germans perfected cloaking devices so that's why there's no proof what-so-ever of a HE-111 in a CAS role!

 

Also, don't you know that 1 (one) HE-111 is easier to replace than ~5 (approximately five) demolition charges? Because 5 (five) is more than 1 (one), therefore a HE-111 is easier to replace.



Donward #171 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

But what if the Germans mounted an 88mm Anti-tank/Flak gun on a He-111 for use as Close Air Support? Then the OP and Lethal will both be correct!

 

PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BRONZE!!!



Lethalhavoc #172 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostBronezhilet, on Sep 06 2016 - 20:20, said:

You dont understand, Wulfe, they used the medium bombers to kill hundreds and hundreds of enemy tanks in a CAS role, with nobody ever noticing any medium bomber in a CAS role. The Germans perfected cloaking devices so that's why there's no proof what-so-ever of a HE-111 in a CAS role!

 

Also, don't you know that 1 (one) HE-111 is easier to replace than ~5 (approximately five) demolition charges? Because 5 (five) is more than 1 (one), therefore a HE-111 is easier to replace.

 

Oh please, you don't even know what the word strafe means, and you have no idea what a WWII weld was.

Donward #173 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostLethalhavoc, on Sep 06 2016 - 11:19, said:

 

We're not back to this are we? Back to the beginning of the circle?

For the last time. Try to understand they weren't just there for the tanks, they were there for the infantry, the arty, transports and any target of opportunity that presented itself.

They weren't over the battlefield by themselves, they attack in CONJUNTION with the ground forces.

They were there for shock and awe.

 

That's Shock und Ja


Edited by Donward, Sep 06 2016 - 20:29.


Bronezhilet #174 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:39

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    02-27-2014

View PostLethalhavoc, on Sep 06 2016 - 20:23, said:

Oh please, you don't even know what the word strafe means, and you have no idea what a WWII weld was.

Ah yes, my bad. I completely forgot that welding doesn't actually introduce heat into the material being welded. I'm sorry.



WulfeHound #175 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 13053 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostDonward, on Sep 06 2016 - 14:23, said:

But what if the Germans mounted an 88mm Anti-tank/Flak gun on a He-111 for use as Close Air Support? Then the OP and Lethal will both be correct!

 

PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BRONZE!!!

 

To be fair there was a version of the Ju 88 with an 88mm gun mounted underneath the fuselage.

Bronezhilet #176 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:42

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 20 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    02-27-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 20:40, said:

To be fair there was a version of the Ju 88 with an 88mm gun mounted underneath the fuselage.

Was that actually ever produced? There was a 7.5 cm variant, but that proved to be a failure as an anti-tank weapon. Shock and horror.

 

Edit:

006.jpg


Edited by Bronezhilet, Sep 06 2016 - 20:44.


WulfeHound #177 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 13053 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Nope. The Ju88P-5 was never built.

Donward #178 Posted Sep 06 2016 - 20:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 11:40, said:

 

To be fair there was a version of the Ju 88 with an 88mm gun mounted underneath the fuselage.

 

View PostBronezhilet, on Sep 06 2016 - 11:42, said:

Was that actually ever produced? There was a 7.5 cm variant, but that proved to be a failure as an anti-tank weapon. Shock and horror.

 

Edit:

006.jpg

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 06 2016 - 11:53, said:

Nope. The Ju88P-5 was never built.

 

PROVE IT DIDN'T DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!!

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #179 Posted Sep 07 2016 - 00:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,607
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View Postmrmojo, on Sep 03 2016 - 17:46, said:

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

I'm quoting your post, but this isn't really aimed at you Mrmojo, and you did point out something i missed, the apparent penetration between the two ammo racks. This still doesn't change my opinion on this one, since often the Germans covered their mine fields with AT guns. I am also looking for the pic, to find more caption info, I think I saw it on Waralbum.RU

 

This is a LATE production M4A2 75 tank with a large hatch hull. This tank was produced after the North African fighting was done. So like I said before, it's an M4A2, that ran over a mine in a minefield/AT gun ambush, and was then blown up by the Germans when they were forced to retreat again.  Some clues that this was an M4A2 produced in 1944, the big one, the high bustle turret (If you don't know what a low or high bustle turret means in regard to Shermans, excuse yourself now, you don't know enough about SHermans to know, but if you want to learn something,  check out the Sherman Minutia site ;) . Also note the late suspension, most tanks used in North Africa had the early bogie type with the return roller mounted on the top, not the side, like on this tank. Also, most M4A2 tanks issued to the UK did not have the blanket shelf like this one, and I don't think they received any of the large hull 75mm M4A2 tanks at all, since the Soviets would only take the M4A2, the British got stuck with the M4A4. 

 

As for how to blow up a disabled Sherman, it's in the crew drill manual, in detail. 

 

 

 


Edited by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, Sep 07 2016 - 00:53.


Vanagandr #180 Posted Sep 07 2016 - 01:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 25407 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
If you look really closely at the welds, you can see where leftover liquid propellant from the Vergeltungswaffe-2 (AKA Aggregat-4 AKA V-2 missile) began burning after the missile hit the ammorack dead-on. I know about welds because I have studied them on the internet. If you look at videos you can see exactly how these welds become affected by liquid rocket fuel burning around them. Since some variants of the V-2 were equipped with the 8,8 or the 12,8 Panzerabwehrkanone (that's German for anti-tank gun), it's entirely possible that the ammo load was already detonated by the time the missile impacted, further explaining the deformation of the hull. The Germans wouldn't have wasted demolition charges on an M4, since the most efficient weapon for destroying an M4, as anyone who knows anything about supplies and logistics knows, is a large long range missile such as the Vergeltungswaffe-2 (AKA Aggregat-4 AKA V-2 missile).




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users