295 replies to this topic

[WulfeHound]

Lethalhavoc, on Aug 30 2016 - 18:18, said:

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.

 

The damage to that is similar to what a demo charge will do. An ammo rack detonation really won't do that amount of damage to the steel. It's going to take the path of least resistance, i. e. through the hatches and turret ring.

Belesarius, on Aug 30 2016 - 22:45, said:

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.

 

 

This is weird.

[Belesarius]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 04:57, said:

 

The damage to that is similar to what a demo charge will do. An ammo rack detonation really won't do that amount of damage to the steel. It's going to take the path of least resistance, i. e. through the hatches and turret ring.

 

This is weird.

 

Yeah... it's almost as if being factually correct has value to certain people.

 

[WulfeHound]

Belesarius, on Aug 30 2016 - 23:05, said:

 

Yeah... it's almost as if being factually correct has value to certain people.

 

 

Thank you.

[BabyOlifant]

it is factually correct that wulf draws furry prawns tho

[Donward]

BabyOlifant, on Aug 30 2016 - 21:30, said:

it is factually correct that wulf draws furry prawns tho

 

[Bronezhilet]

To elaborate slightly, the reason an ammorack detonation isn't capable of blowing apart a tank is because an "ammorack detonation" isn't a detonation. It's a deflagration, which means that it combusts with a speed that's lower than the speed of sound. A detonation propagates supersonically, which is why detonations feature shockwaves inside the material while deflagrations don't. Due to this a deflagration does not have brisance, while a detonation does. Brisance is defined as "the shattering effect of a high explosive". So the material inside a HE shell detonates, which is evidently seen in the creation of fragments. If propellant were to detonate (which it can't) it would destroy the barrel and breech. This obviously does not happen, propellant deflagrates.

 

While ammorack explosions look impressive with that huge flame, it's simply a very fast and fierce fire. The pressure build-up with open hatches is quite low. If the hatches are closed the pressure would build until a hatch would give away, at which point the pressure loss through the open hatch is a lot higher than the pressure build-up from the fire. So a ammorack explosion is simply not capable of literally ripping a hull apart.

 

Now, before you go "but you said that HE shells do detonate so those can totally blow apart the hull!". No, these explosive compounds are insensitive and are designed to *not* get caught up in sympathetic detonations. And even if they were to go boom, a HE shell is not powerful enough to blow apart a hull.

 

What's interesting to note that TNT has about the same specific energy as propellant. Black powder has 3 MJ/kg, while TNT has 4.6 MJ/kg. Now these values are most likely not completely similar to the propellant used in tank guns, but they'll be close enough to be considered the same. Why? Well, if you look at diesel you'll see that it has a specific energy of about 47 MJ/kg, more than ten times the specific energy of TNT. And yet diesel doesn't vaporise a tank when it burns.

 

Edit: Grammar

Edited by Bronezhilet, Aug 31 2016 - 09:55.

[Donward]

Bronezhilet, on Aug 30 2016 - 23:38, said:

To elaborate slightly, the reason an ammorack detonation isn't capable of blowing apart is because an "ammorack detonation" isn't a detonation. It's a deflagration, which means that it combusts with a speed that's lower than the speed of sound. A detonation propagates supersonically, which is why detonations feature shockwaves inside the material while deflagrations don't. Due to this a deflagration does not have brisance, while a detonation does. Brisance is defined as "the shattering effect of a high explosive". So the material inside a HE shell detonates, which is evidently seen in the creation of fragments. If propellant were to detonate (which it can't) it would destroy the barrel and breech. This obviously does not happen, propellant deflagrates.

 

While ammorack explosions look impressive with that huge flame, it's simply a very fast and fierce fire. The pressure build-up with open hatches is quite low. If the hatches are closed the pressure would build until a hatch would give away, at which point the pressure loss through the open hatch is a lot higher than the pressure build-up from the fire. So a ammorack explosion is simply not capable of literally ripping a hull apart.

 

Now, before you go "but you said that HE shells do detonate so those can totally blow apart the hull!". No, apart from those explosive compounds being insensitive and designed to *not* get caught up in sympathetic detonations. And even if they were to go boom, a HE shell is not powerful enough to blow apart a hull.

 

What's interesting to note that TNT has about the same specific energy as propellant. Black powder has 3 MJ/kg, while TNT has 4.6 MJ/kg. Now these values are most likely not completely similar to the propellant used in tank guns, but they'll be close enough to be considered the same. Why? Well, if you look at diesel you'll see that it has a specific energy of about 47 MJ/kg, more than ten times the specific energy of TNT. And yet diesel doesn't vaporise a tank when it burns.

 

This is the smartest and most useful thing that has been written on the WOT NA Forum for almost two years.

 

How very fortunate you are to have read it. Now learn it.

Edited by Donward, Aug 31 2016 - 11:41.

[Lethalhavoc]

Belesarius, on Aug 31 2016 - 05:05, said:

 

Yeah... it's almost as if being factually correct has value to certain people.

 

 

When speculation becomes fact... What happens next?

[WulfeHound]

BabyOlifant, on Aug 31 2016 - 00:30, said:

it is factually correct that wulf draws furry prawns tho

 

No I don't.

[Swoony]

Donward, on Aug 30 2016 - 13:28, 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.

 

I posted a picture of a ''Tank'' in the ''World of Tanks'' forum in the ''Off Topic'' section... Do I have to ask you permission to post? I don't know who the hell you think you are with your little smart-a$$ comments as if you were there. Do us all a favour and stfu dude...

Edited by Swoony, Aug 31 2016 - 16:08.

[aethervox]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 00:00, said:

Just when I think you've reached the bottom, you hit a new low.

 

Just pointing out how you changed your story Wulfehound & how Donward has reading comprehension issues of his own.

 Too bad if you don't like being caught out in an exaggeration.

[aethervox]

Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 00:00, 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...

 

Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 11:17, said:

 

When speculation becomes fact... What happens next?

 

We get well known frequent posters and their dim bulb followers insisting on their version of the truth ("All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others&quot

[Donward]

Swoony, on Aug 31 2016 - 07:07, said:

 

I posted a picture of a ''Tank'' in the ''World of Tanks'' forum in the ''Off Topic'' section... Do I have to ask you permission to post? I don't know who the hell you think you are with your little smart-a$$ comments as if you were there. Do us all a favour and stfu dude...

 

You come into a public forum and post information that is clearly incorrect and you expect people not to correct this information?

 

Or were you expecting everyone here to start fapping over "MUH GERMAN SUPERIORITY" and how M4 Shermans were Death Traps? Because if that's what you were expecting, it seems your expectations have been shattered.

[WulfeHound]

aethervox, on Aug 31 2016 - 13:05, said:

 

Just pointing out how you changed your story Wulfehound & how Donward has reading comprehension issues of his own.

 Too bad if you don't like being caught out in an exaggeration.

 

A different word means I changed the story? My friend, you're looking way too hard at things. And no, Donward and I do not have reading comprehension problems. We're not the ones barging in here with blatantly wrong statements and continuing to state said wrong statements despite all the evidence showing that he and I are correct.

[Lethalhavoc]

aethervox, on Aug 31 2016 - 19:14, said:

 

 

We get well known frequent posters and their dim bulb followers insisting on their version of the truth ("All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others&quot

 

We can all have an opinion in the matter, but convincing oneself of a single most likely cause is self defeating. Because there is just so little information to go on.

We don't even know what direction that tank is facing. Is it facing towards the German line of advance, or the American?

The tank has no national markings whatsoever that I can see. Is it American, British or captured German?

For all we know, this tank wasn't even destroyed in WWII, but possibly in a later middle east conflict.

We have no area ground details in the background, there could be either bomb or artillery craters all over the place for all we know.

We have only 1 angle so making any further determinations in the matter is impossible.

 

But, I can speculate that if the Germans blew the tank, that they would have likely taken the .50 cal and as much ammunition, fuel as possible to supply captured allied equipment that they used in battle.

I can also speculate that they would not have placed the charge in the engine compartment, and that no combat engineer worth his salt would have used so much explosives.

The Germans blew up a lot of equipment during the war to keep it out of enemy hands, so they were pretty good at it. Meaning an ammunition of demolition charge in the fighting compartment would have been more than adequate.

 

So that really just leaves us guessing.

As I doubt anyone on these forums has much experience blowing up Shermans using vintage WWII German demolition charges.

Or have dropped 500lbs bombs on Shermans. Or even fired artillery shells at Shermans.

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 20:57, said:

 

A different word means I changed the story? My friend, you're looking way too hard at things. And no, Donward and I do not have reading comprehension problems. We're not the ones barging in here with blatantly wrong statements and continuing to state said wrong statements despite all the evidence showing that he and I are correct.

 

Comparing a cast hull to a welded hull and calling them both oranges.... Apple anyone?

[WulfeHound]

Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 15:02, said:

 

Comparing a cast hull to a welded hull and calling them both oranges.... Apple anyone?

 

I've already shown a welded hull Sherman (specifically an M4A2) and the damage was quite similar to what the M4 in N. Africa had. For a more normal comparison, here's an E2 that was ammo racked:

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 21:24, said:

 

I've already shown a welded hull Sherman (specifically an M4A2) and the damage was quite similar to what the M4 in N. Africa had. For a more normal comparison, here's an E2 that was ammo racked:

 

How many rounds of ammunition was it carrying?

[WulfeHound]

Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 15:30, said:

 

How many rounds of ammunition was it carrying?

 

Full load, I'd imagine

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 21:37, said:

 

Full load, I'd imagine

 

That's based on what exactly?