0
Captain
WulfeHound, on Aug 31 2016 - 15:24, 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 do you know it was ammo racked? We want proof of what you're saying here. It could have been a herd of wild cows that knocked out that Sherman because with no proof, who knows, right?
Edited by Swoony, Sep 01 2016 - 03:58.
Major
Swoony, on Aug 31 2016 - 18:57, said:
How do you know it was ammo racked? We want proof of what you're saying here. It could have been a herd of wild cows that knocked out that Sherman because with no proof, who knows, right?
The turret would be on the left side of the tank had it been cows. Focus on the evidence for just once.
Major
Swoony, on Sep 01 2016 - 03:57, said:
How do you know it was ammo racked? We want proof of what you're saying here. It could have been a herd of wild cows that knocked out that Sherman because with no proof, who knows, right?
There's no need to go that far. Clearly that was an ammo rack, the only question is just how much ammunition it was carrying and exactly how many rounds are needed to detonate to lift the turret and shear the hull.
An example could be that 5 rounds detonated in the above example, and 30 rounds might have detonated in the OP's example.
Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 01 2016 - 04:01.
Major
Donward, on Sep 01 2016 - 02:05, said:
I thought that would leave you speechless.
Captain
Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 22:00, said:
There's no need to go that far. Clearly that was an ammo rack, the only question is just how much ammunition it was carrying and exactly how many rounds are needed to detonate to lift the turret and shear the hull.
An example could be that 5 rounds detonated in the above example, and 30 rounds might have detonated in the OP's example.
I'm just saying that because the guy talks like he was there... bla bla bla
Major
Donward, on Sep 01 2016 - 04:21, said:
Yeah. Someone quoting Achtung Panzer - and not ironically - kind of does that.
By all means, link your source materiel that proves otherwise.....
Major
Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 22:00, said:
There's no need to go that far. Clearly that was an ammo rack, the only question is just how much ammunition it was carrying and exactly how many rounds are needed to detonate to lift the turret and shear the hull.
An example could be that 5 rounds detonated in the above example, and 30 rounds might have detonated in the OP's example.
5 rounds wouldn't cause the turret of an E2 to pop like that
Major
Swoony, on Sep 01 2016 - 04:23, said:
I'm just saying that because the guy talks like he was there... bla bla bla
You have to give Wulf credit where credit is due.
Wulf really goes out of his way to research a topic and for the most part is right on the money.
But in this instance, I think he's wrong.
Because of the following 4 things;
The .50 cal is still there.
The demo charge appears to be placed in the engine compartment.
Why is it the only example from a large number of destroyed Shermans that suffered this type of treatment.
And finally the amount of explosives used would have been excessive, in a time period the Germans couldn't afford to be generous.
Which is giving us the opportunity to debate it.
Major
WulfeHound, on Sep 01 2016 - 04:35, said:
5 rounds wouldn't cause the turret of an E2 to pop like that
Obviously, it was just an example.
Major
Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 22:36, said:
You have to give Wulf credit where credit is due.
Wulf really goes out of his way to research a topic and for the most part is right on the money.
But in this instance, I think he's wrong.
Because of the following 4 things;
The .50 cal is still there.
The demo charge appears to be placed in the engine compartment.
Why is it the only example from a large number of destroyed Shermans that suffered this type of treatment.
And finally the amount of explosives used would have been excessive, in a time period the Germans couldn't afford to be generous.
Which is giving us the opportunity to debate it.
You try lifting an M2 .50cal when it's got a multi-ton turret resting on it
Major
WulfeHound, on Sep 01 2016 - 04:42, said:
You try lifting an M2 .50cal when it's got a multi-ton turret resting on it
But, don't you see. If the tank had been destroyed during combat and suffered an ammo explosion, they would not have used a demo charge in the first place.
At that point it was already unrecoverable.
Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 01 2016 - 04:44.
Major
Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 22:44, said:
But, don't you see. If the tank had been destroyed during combat and suffered an ammo explosion, they would not have used a demo charge in the first place.
At that point it was already unrecoverable.
It's better to take a chance and make the tank completely unrecoverable rather than leave it and being recovered.
Major
WulfeHound, on Sep 01 2016 - 04:51, said:
It's better to take a chance and make the tank completely unrecoverable rather than leave it and being recovered.
Okay, but why TNT it when they could have just broken a fuel line or puncture a fuel tank and throw in a burning rag?
It's a lot faster, far easier, and doesn't require explosives or combat engineers.
Major
Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 22:56, said:
Okay, but why TNT it when they could have just broken a fuel line or puncture a fuel tank and throw in a burning rag?
It's a lot faster, far easier, and doesn't require explosives or combat engineers.
Have you tried to blow up a fuel tank before? It takes more than a burning rag to do that
Major
WulfeHound, on Sep 01 2016 - 05:05, said:
Have you tried to blow up a fuel tank before? It takes more than a burning rag to do that
You don't need to blow up the fuel tank. Just start a fuel leak and let the fire do the damage.
The main reason Shermans got the incorrect nickname of "the Ronson", was because the Germans had a habit of firing on them until they caught fire making the tank a complete write off.
Major
Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 23:08, said:
You don't need to blow up the fuel tank. Just start a fuel leak and let the fire do the damage.
The main reason Shermans got the incorrect nickname of "the Ronson", was because the Germans had a habit of firing on them until they caught fire making the tank a complete write off.
And a fuel fire can be put out.
(No, the "Ronson" nickname was falsely given to the Sherman because apparently using petrol means instant death)
Major
WulfeHound, on Sep 01 2016 - 05:14, said:
And a fuel fire can be put out.
(No, the "Ronson" nickname was falsely given to the Sherman because apparently using petrol means instant death)
No foot soldier is going to jump on the deck of a burning tank to put out a fuel fire with their bare hands.
Especially if the enemy is near enough to be a possible threat.
And I know the full story as to how the incorrect nickname came about (or at least as full as history permits).
Edited by Lethalhavoc, Sep 01 2016 - 05:19.
Major
Oh boy, we got the Ronson myth being bandied about now.
And the reason you don't just cut a fuel line or throw a rag into a gas tank is because, you know, tanks can be repaired. Or even if it can't, parts from it can then be salvaged and used to repair other vehicles. Which is what - presumably - the Germans didn't want to happen.
This isn't Nazi Rocket Science here kiddies.
Major
Lethalhavoc, on Aug 31 2016 - 23:19, said:
No foot soldier is going to jump on the deck of a burning tank to put out a fuel fire with their bare hands.
Especially if the enemy is near enough to be a possible threat.
And I know the full story as to how the incorrect nickname came about (or at least as full as history permits).
*facepalm*
That's what extinguishers are for
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
