Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
295 replies to this topic

AquaShrimp #21 Posted Aug 28 2016 - 15:11

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 5645 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
Regardless of what caused this.  The chemical energy from the ammo inside the tank was tremendous.  All the propellant and HE warheads.  It wasn't until wet ammo storage that a Sherman became even a bit safe to be in when hit.

Donward #22 Posted Aug 28 2016 - 17:06

    Major

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

View PostSwoony, on Aug 28 2016 - 05:53, said:

 

What excuses? Nobody has the right answer! Again, what the hell's your problem kid? Need attention? No friends in your backyard?

I think your mommy pulled you off that nipple a little too soon. Shmuck.

 

You put information up onto the forum that is wrong. You get called for it. And now you cop an attitude. Sorry toots - assuming you're "female" - but you'll have to step up your game a little more than that. 

 

Was there a particular reason to post this image?

 

We've discussed it at length numerous times in previous posts at the Historical Armored Vehicles section of the forums and while smacking down Wehraboos in the general forum.



AquaShrimp #23 Posted Aug 28 2016 - 17:25

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 5645 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
Downward, fill us in. What caused the tank to detonate in such a way?

Donward #24 Posted Aug 28 2016 - 23:57

    Major

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

View PostAquaShrimp, on Aug 28 2016 - 08:25, said:

Downward, fill us in. What caused the tank to detonate in such a way?

 

That it was a demo charge? Yeah. Wulfie already said that.

 



aethervox #25 Posted Aug 29 2016 - 15:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 27033 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 26 2016 - 22:16, said:

Specifically, it's an M4 constructed by Pressed Steel Car in August of 1942. Serial number is 3015037. The damage may have been caused by a demolition charge placed by the Germans to render the tank unrecoverable

 

Ya sure, Wulfie, some suicidal German placed a Demo charge on it out in the open like that? Ya sure.

More like it was an 88 shell to its rear like the OP said.



WulfeHound #26 Posted Aug 29 2016 - 20:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postaethervox, on Aug 29 2016 - 09:50, said:

 

 

*facepalm*

 

The demolition charge was placed on the tank after it was knocked out. Use your brain (if you even have one)

 

An 88mm HE shell isn't powerful enough to do that amount of damage even if it did penetrate



Donward #27 Posted Aug 29 2016 - 21:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011
Seriously. It's like some people can't even read.

I thought the question was whether the Germans demo'd the tank so it wouldn't be recaptured by the Americans versus whether the Americans did it first so the Krauts couldn't get their sticky fingers on it.

aethervox #28 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 13:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 27033 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostSwoony, on Aug 26 2016 - 22:03, said:

That's what an M4 Sherman looks like after being hit and penetrated by a German 88mm Anti-Tank/Flak Gun -

Looks like a HE shell that came through the rear and found the ammo rack.

Battle of the Kasserine Pass, Tunisia February 1943

 

View PostSwoony, on Aug 26 2016 - 23:05, said:

 

Yes, I do know. And with a mix of fuel and ammo going off you can have this!

 

View PostAquaShrimp, on Aug 28 2016 - 15:11, said:

Regardless of what caused this.  The chemical energy from the ammo inside the tank was tremendous.  All the propellant and HE warheads.  It wasn't until wet ammo storage that a Sherman became even a bit safe to be in when hit.

 

View PostDonward, on Aug 29 2016 - 21:26, said:

Seriously. It's like some people can't even read.

I thought the question was whether the Germans demo'd the tank so it wouldn't be recaptured by the Americans versus whether the Americans did it first so the Krauts couldn't get their sticky fingers on it.

 

Donward, you likely didn't read the OP original post and you accuse someone else with not reading? LOL

aethervox #29 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 14:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 27033 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 26 2016 - 22:16, said:

Specifically, it's an M4 constructed by Pressed Steel Car in August of 1942. Serial number is 3015037. The damage may have been caused by a demolition charge placed by the Germans to render the tank unrecoverable

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 29 2016 - 20:20, said:

 

*facepalm*

 

The demolition charge was placed on the tank after it was knocked out. Use your brain (if you even have one)

 

An 88mm HE shell isn't powerful enough to do that amount of damage even if it did penetrate

 

I find it instructive that Wulfie says "The damage 'may' have been caused by a demolition charge ...." conveniently changes to "The demolition charge 'was' placed on the tank ....".

Which story is it, Wulfie? 'May'? (might have) or 'Was'? (definitely). More drivel masquerading as 'facts'

"facepalm"

An 88 shell igniting an Ammo rack very likely could cause the damage shown. Duh!



Worland #30 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 16:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 16766 battles
  • 4,943
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I seem to remember this was one of several Shermans destroyed by German engineers at Kasserine. Captured British Shermans in North Africa, blown up by German engineers, look the same. Engine blown out the back, sides peeled, and popped turret.

WulfeHound #31 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 18:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postaethervox, on Aug 30 2016 - 08:03, said:

 

 

 

That's what an ammo-racked Sherman looks like. Note how the hull is still intact despite the ammunition blowing up.

 

Now this Sherman was destroyed by an ammo rack (that's why the turret is on the ground). The only way that it could get the damage to the hull shown is with a demo charge placed on the engine deck. An 88mm shell does not have the explosive power to do that amount of damage even if it did hit the ammo rack.

 

Use your bloody brain, if you even have one.


Edited by WulfeHound, Aug 30 2016 - 18:16.


Donward #32 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 19:28

    Major

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

View Postaethervox, on Aug 30 2016 - 04:53, said:

 

 

 

 

Donward, you likely didn't read the OP original post and you accuse someone else with not reading? LOL

 

There's two pages in this thread. I've read every comment several times. It's been fairly well established that this was a demolition charge placed on the tank - most likely by the Krauts - in order to prevent the vehicle from being recaptured by the Americans. This is the result. Hell, Wulfie has even given the serial number of the thing.

 

Don't be addled. 

 

You do realize this is something done in warfare, right? Capturing equipment and destroying equipment so it doesn't fall into the enemy hands. And since tanks are big, god awful heavy contraptions that are hard to move when they are disabled, and since the Germans had poor armored recovery vehicle assets and weren't in the position to recover this one on time, blowing it up was the convenient thing to do.

 

Even a German would realize that despite the fact that Nazis were notorious for not properly destroying equipment before it fell into enemy hands.

 

And - LOL - an 88 mm shell with "high explosive" is not able to do that to a Sherman no matter what your Wehraboo fantasy.

 

Again, this brings up the question of what point the OP was trying to make in the first place by making this thread to begin with.


Edited by Donward, Aug 30 2016 - 19:31.


aethervox #33 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 23:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 27033 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 30 2016 - 18:16, said:

 

That's what an ammo-racked Sherman looks like. Note how the hull is still intact despite the ammunition blowing up.

 

Now this Sherman was destroyed by an ammo rack (that's why the turret is on the ground). The only way that it could get the damage to the hull shown is with a demo charge placed on the engine deck. An 88mm shell does not have the explosive power to do that amount of damage even if it did hit the ammo rack.

 

Use your bloody brain, if you even have one.

 

ROFL. So in the bottom example the Ammo Rack explosion throws the turret clear but somehow in the upper example the gun barrel is inexplicably inside the tank body while the turret precariously got balanced above an intact body?

Can anyone say 'staged photo?



aethervox #34 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 27033 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostDonward, on Aug 30 2016 - 19:28, said:

 

There's two pages in this thread. I've read every comment several times. It's been fairly well established that this was a demolition charge placed on the tank - most likely by the Krauts - in order to prevent the vehicle from being recaptured by the Americans. This is the result. Hell, Wulfie has even given the serial number of the thing.

 

Don't be addled.

 

You do realize this is something done in warfare, right? Capturing equipment and destroying equipment so it doesn't fall into the enemy hands. And since tanks are big, god awful heavy contraptions that are hard to move when they are disabled, and since the Germans had poor armored recovery vehicle assets and weren't in the position to recover this one on time, blowing it up was the convenient thing to do.

 

Even a German would realize that despite the fact that Nazis were notorious for not properly destroying equipment before it fell into enemy hands.

 

And - LOL - an 88 mm shell with "high explosive" is not able to do that to a Sherman no matter what your Wehraboo fantasy.

 

Again, this brings up the question of what point the OP was trying to make in the first place by making this thread to begin with.

 

Another ludicrous reply. It was clearly a shell that hit an Ammo rack (how many shells would that have been?).

 You have reading comprehension issues, Donward, just like Wulfehound ( "may have been" a demolition charge changing to "was" a demolition charge).



WulfeHound #35 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 00:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Just when I think you've reached the bottom, you hit a new low.

Lethalhavoc #36 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 00:00

    Major

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

It's silly to continue to argue about something, that at best we can only speculate on, as none of us were there and the documentation of it is minimal.

There are many possible ways this tank could have been destroyed, including by air attack...



WulfeHound #37 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 00:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostLethalhavoc, on Aug 30 2016 - 18:00, said:

It's silly to continue to argue about something, that at best we can only speculate on, as none of us were there and the documentation of it is minimal.

There are many possible ways this tank could have been destroyed, including by air attack...

 

Air attacks destroyed a fairly small number of tanks compared to mines, infantry, AT guns, and artillery. The most likely course of action that led to that specific tank being destroyed was that it got shot up by AT guns (since you can see one of the penetration holes in the glacis just to the left of the codriver's direct vision block), and then after it was knocked out the Germans placed a demolition charge on it to make the tank unusable for the Americans.

 

Case in point, this Soviet M4A2:



Lethalhavoc #38 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 00:18

    Major

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

Yes, but, here is an example claiming to be a Sherman destroyed by a Tiger tank in the Florence area Italy.

Notice the similarities.

It's even possible that in these examples, that Rosie the riveter had some bad days.


Edited by Lethalhavoc, Aug 31 2016 - 00:45.


Walter_Sobchak #39 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 04:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostSwoony, on Aug 28 2016 - 08:53, said:

 

What excuses? Nobody has the right answer! Again, what the hell's your problem kid? Need attention? No friends in your backyard?

I think your mommy pulled you off that nipple a little too soon. Shmuck.

 

I'm pretty sure Donward's mother weened him for the correct amount of time.  Also, he has plenty of friends.  You wouldn't know it though because you have never been invited to his backyard.  

 

That said....

 

It's pretty obvious that Wolfie got this right on the second post.  The damage to that Sherman is very different from most pictures I have seen of knocked out tanks.  I think it's a pretty safe bet this tank was demolished with explosive charges to deny recovery.  Regardless, it's a very interesting, if somewhat depressing photo.  



Belesarius #40 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 04:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 7951 battles
  • 3,586
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

Holy crap.  Everyone is jumping in to defend Wulfie... crap has gotten really weird.  Or... gasp... can it be?   Wulfie is right for once? 

 

Holy double crap. :P

 


Edited by Belesarius, Aug 31 2016 - 04:45.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users