295 replies to this topic

[Lethalhavoc]

[WulfeHound]

Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 15:39, said:

 

That's based on what exactly?

 

An assumption. I don't know for sure. It was hit at least 9 times by enemy fire, with hit #9 penetrating the mantlet through the telescope aperture. This particular E2 was part of C Company, 743rd Tank Battalion, 4rd Armored Division and was destroyed on 22 November 1944 near Lohn, Germany

Edited by WulfeHound, Sep 01 2016 - 02:25.

[mrmojo]

Wulfhund is ex-military, demolition expert now?

I searched google for one of the photos and it says something like "may have been destroyed" by the Germans/demolitions - on my phone right now so can't be 100%. It's the one with the intact .50 cal still attached to the turret and another Sherman seemingly just knocked out in the foreground (guess the Germans didn't want to demo that one)

Point is "may" has become fact with wulfhunds imprimatur.

[WulfeHound]

mrmojo, on Aug 31 2016 - 17:06, said:

Wulfhund is ex-military, demolition expert now?

I searched google for one of the photos and it says something like "may have been destroyed" by the Germans/demolitions - on my phone right now so can't be 100%. It's the one with the intact .50 cal still attached to the turret and another Sherman seemingly just knocked out in the foreground (guess the Germans didn't want to demo that one)

Point is "may" has become fact with wulfhunds imprimatur.

 

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a1psc/m4a1_psc.html

 

"May" in this case is the most likely cause of destruction

[mrmojo]

Have wait til I can get to a PC - apologies

[Lethalhavoc]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 23:12, said:

 

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a1psc/m4a1_psc.html

 

"May" in this case is the most likely cause of destruction

 

Your source uses the word "appears" and then references a source book.

But he also goes on to say that these Shermans were:

"This is the only Sherman in the series of German photos that is seen equipped with the M4 bogies, and we suspect that 3015037 was very close to "patient zero" in PSC's transition to them".

And included some detailed production data. Which to me means that Rosie the riveter almost certainly had a bad day, as it's the only Sherman in these series of photos to have suffered this fate.

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 01 2016 - 00:28.

[Donward]

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

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

This is still the relevant quote of the thread. I know there are some big words here people but it ain't that hard.

[Lethalhavoc]

Donward, on Sep 01 2016 - 00:28, said:

This is still the relevant quote of the thread. I know there are some big words here people but it ain't that hard.

 

I guess if you quote something enough times, that you find it easier to overlook the placement of the "demo charge" and that fact that this is the only tank in the series (100 knocked out Shermans) to have suffered this damage?

[Donward]

Yeah. Funny how a weapon used by a victorious army is less likely to be captured by the enemy. It's almost like the Allies were in possession of the majority of battlefields that they fought on making the chance of a German demo crew blowing a Sherman to smithereens that much rarer.

[Lethalhavoc]

Donward, on Sep 01 2016 - 00:50, said:

Yeah. Funny how a weapon used by a victorious army is less likely to be captured by the enemy. It's almost like the Allies were in possession of the majority of battlefields that they fought on making the chance of a German demo crew blowing a Sherman to smithereens that much rarer.

 

Yeah, you can hardly find 100's of photos of captured allied tanks and vehicles being used by the Germans....

[Donward]

Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 16:05, said:

 

Yeah, you can hardly find 100's of photos of captured allied tanks and vehicles being used by the Germans....

Yeah. I know. It's like Goebbels was eager to take lots and lots of pictures from different angles in order to persuade the German people that they weren't losing the war.

 

...

 

Is there any particular reason why you are so emotionally invested in the myth that an 88mm caused this destruction? 

[Lethalhavoc]

Donward, on Sep 01 2016 - 01:18, said:

Yeah. I know. It's like Goebbels was eager to take lots and lots of pictures from different angles in order to persuade the German people that they weren't losing the war.

 

...

 

Is there any particular reason why you are so emotionally invested in the myth that an 88mm caused this destruction?

 

To think of all that time they wasted painting and repainting them to make them look like different tanks....

 

I don't believe that an 88mm did destroy the tank in question.

But I guess you spend as much time actually reading these posts as you spent researching this topic.

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 01 2016 - 04:16.

[Donward]

And to think the Germans had so few captured operational American tanks on hand that they needed to doctor up Panthers to look like an M10 for their deception campaign during the Battle of the Bulge. But doing research like that is SOOO hard. You might have to click on The Chieftain's Hatch to do that.

Care to keep digging?

[Lethalhavoc]

Donward, on Sep 01 2016 - 01:27, said:

And to think the Germans had so few captured operational American tanks on hand that they needed to doctor up Panthers to look like an M10 for their deception campaign during the Battle of the Bulge. But doing research like that is SOOO hard. You might have to click on The Chieftain's Hatch to do that.

Care to keep digging?

 

You're too funny. God forbid that they used their best tanks as well as captured allied tanks.

So have you spent some time actually reading the posts in this thread yet?

Here, chew on this for a while. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/captured-tanks-used-by-the-german-armed-force.htm#amer

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/captured-foreign-equipment-registry.htm

Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 01 2016 - 01:52.

[Donward]

Just...

Wow.

[Meplat]

[Walter_Sobchak]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 16:16, said:

 

An assumption. I don't know for sure. It was hit at least 9 times by enemy fire, with hit #9 penetrating the mantlet through the telescope aperture. This particular E2 was part of C Company, 743rd Tank Battalion, 4rd Armored Division and was destroyed on 22 November 1945 near Lohn, Germany

Wulfe, you might want to recheck that date.  Hopefully US tanks were not being knocked out in November of 1945.  

[WulfeHound]

Walter_Sobchak, on Aug 31 2016 - 20:24, said:

Wulfe, you might want to recheck that date.  Hopefully US tanks were not being knocked out in November of 1945.  

 

I assumed 1945, but thanks for the correction.

[Swoony]

Donward, on Aug 31 2016 - 14:29, said:

 

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.

 

You don't know what really happened, nobody knows for sure. Even if some guy knows the tank's number and what the Commander had for lunch, he still doesn't know what really happened to that M4. Who mentioned German superiority or M4 death traps? So as I told you before, do us all a favour and stfu!

[Swoony]

WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 16:16, said:

 

An assumption. I don't know for sure. It was hit at least 9 times by enemy fire, with hit #9 penetrating the mantlet through the telescope aperture. This particular E2 was part of C Company, 743rd Tank Battalion, 4rd Armored Division and was destroyed on 22 November 1944 near Lohn, Germany

 

Everything is an assumption... you can't start telling people they're wrong when not a living soul knows the right answer. It ''may'' have been this or that... stop acting like you actually set that explosive charge.

Edited by Swoony, Sep 01 2016 - 03:41.