tanks during the second world war

[franksolich]

You know, I never even thought about equating tanks (some aspects of tanks, not all aspects) with heavy agricultural and construction equipment, as did one member at freerepublic.  If I had done that, I wouldn't have even asked the question about the tank tracks.

When it comes to sizes and weights of things, that's a little bit too abstract for this mind to grasp, unless this mind has seen something in real life with which to compare it.

A good example of this is steam locomotives.  I imagine the "biggest" steam locomotive most here have ever seen, in operation, was perhaps the old 4-6-2s that were used on virtually all railways in the United States during the first half of the 20th century, and before.

The 4-6-2s were big, yes, and impressive when actually steamed up.

But having spent my own childhood alongside the main line of the Union Pacific railway, I've seen 4-8-4s in operation--exhibitions--and the enormous 4-6-2s were nothing, when compared with the 4-8-4s.

But then about four years ago, I saw a Union Pacific 4-8-8-4, the largest steam locomotive ever actually used, steamed up and running.  Man, there can't possibly be anything bigger than that.

And as for ships--well, the only actual real battleship I've ever seen with my own eyes was an old Soviet one, on the Black Sea, during the mid-1990s.  It looked pretty big to me, but I suspect it was nothing, as compared with the Japanese Yamato of the second world war.

The only submarines I've seen in real life couldn't have been more than 100' long; I saw them as the train passed them, abandoned and rusting on the beach near Portsmouth, England, like a row of dead fish all lined up.  I have no idea how old they must have been, and how they compared with submarines today.  From the train at least, they looked big enough to hold, maybe, half a dozen or ten men.

Military aircraft, well, I've seen a B-52, and can't imagine any aircraft larger than that.

[TxRadioguy]

Military aircraft, well, I've seen a B-52, and can't imagine any aircraft larger than that.

Wait until there's an Air Show at Offutt...go out and look at a C-5.  Those things carry tanks.  It makes the BUFF look not as big.

Not to mean that it's still not an impressive bird.  One did a fly over for a funeral last Wed and everyone out on the parade field stopped to turn and watch as it flew directly over us.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Thank you, dutch508, sir, but I remain confused about one thing.

Am I correct in my impression that the U.S. Army had no heavy tanks during the second world war, or only just a handful of them?

I fully understand General Marshall's attitude that sheer quantity was more important than quality, and obviously it was the correct attitude.

But surely there must have been at least some on drawing-boards?

There actually was a US heavy tank produced, the M6, in small numbers but still as series production rather than prototyping.  It looked sort of like some misbegotten attempt to crossbreed a Brit Matilda Mk. II Infantry Tank and a Sherman.  The suspension was similar to an early-war Sherman's vertical-volute-spring-suspension (VVSS, the kind with the smaller road wheels), but with an extra pair of road wheels each side, and a heavy outer layer of armor on the outside of the suspension, plus considerably thicker turret and frontal armor.  They were not that much larger than a Sherman but quite a bit heavier, which meant their ground pressure sucked even worse than that of the early Shermans.  The main gun was, however, still the general purpose 75mm of the basic M4 (Still being designed around the flawed doctrine on proper use of tanks), and so they basically had nothing to offer over M4s.  The Army correctly decided to use them for the training establishment in the States.

[dutch508]

DAT, what was that big assed tank out in front of the Armor Museum at Knox? The XM-1 or something?

[Zathras]

There actually was a US heavy tank produced, the M6, in small numbers but still as series production rather than prototyping.  It looked sort of like some misbegotten attempt to crossbreed a Brit Matilda Mk. II Infantry Tank and a Sherman.  The suspension was similar to an early-war Sherman's vertical-volute-spring-suspension (VVSS, the kind with the smaller road wheels), but with an extra pair of road wheels each side, and a heavy outer layer of armor on the outside of the suspension, plus considerably thicker turret and frontal armor.  They were not that much larger than a Sherman but quite a bit heavier, which meant their ground pressure sucked even worse than that of the early Shermans.  The main gun was, however, still the general purpose 75mm of the basic M4 (Still being designed around the flawed doctrine on proper use of tanks), and so they basically had nothing to offer over M4s.  The Army correctly decided to use them for the training establishment in the States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_Heavy_Tank

[DumbAss Tanker]

DAT, what was that big assed tank out in front of the Armor Museum at Knox? The XM-1 or something?

I believe that was the T95, a WW2 project for the invasion of Japan, if it's what I think you mean - it used to be parked in front of the Armor School HQ, back when I was a TC in the the 194th and we were overrunning the last Brontosaurus defensive positions in our M60A1s.  No actual turret on it, extra sets of tracks on the outside to spread the ground pressure, and a hull-mounted 120mm gun ("Gun" in the artillerist sense, a long high-velocity, low-trajectory tube). 

[JohnnyReb]

Robbed this from wikipedia about the M26 and the Third Armored.

A 33rd Armored Regiment Company F Pershing (serial number 38, nicknamed "Fireball" by its crew) was destroyed in night combat with a Tiger tank near Elsdorf on February 26, 1945, on the second day of Pershing employment in combat. The first hit, at range about 100 yards, penetrated through coaxial machine gun port into the turret, killing the gunner and loader. The second hit damaged the muzzle brake, and the third projectile deflected from upper right-hand side of turret and tore away the cupola hatch cover, which was open. The tank was soon repaired and recommitted to combat on March 7 1945.[1]

On the same day when "Fireball" was disabled, another Pershing engaged four Tigers and two Pz. Kpfw. IVs, knocking out two Tigers and a Panzer IV.[2] On March 6, 1945, another Pershing of the 3rd Armored Division (vehicle serial number 25), belonging to Company H, 33rd Armored Regiment, was destroyed at a range of under 300 yards by a Nashorn near Niehl, a small suburb town north of Cologne. The projectile penetrated the lower front armor plate and started a fire in turret. The crew successfully abandoned the vehicle before the ammunition exploded. The tank was rated as repairable, but due to estimated time of repair and shortage of Pershing spare parts at time, it was decided to evacuate vehicle to the rear for cannibalization.[3]

[DumbAss Tanker]

I have read of Fireball's last fight, an interesting additional footnote to that was the Tiger got high-centered on rubble leaving the scene, and the crew was unable to get it off and ended up abandoning it and blowing it in place.  Sometimes shit just doesn't work out in the military, despite a promising start.

One point in Frank's original post, which wasn't in his question list.  The writing segment he posted went on at some length about how superior our recovery and refit were, and our Ordnance branch guys certainly were a total first-class operation.  With WW2 tanks it is pretty much true that they could always be rebuilt if you put enough time and parts into them, even if a burnt-out tank is really mild steel instead of hardened armor after the fire (Hey, once it's painted, the new crew will never know, and it's not like the US armor would stop a 75L70 or 88L56 shot any better than mild stell would anyway).  However, the Germans were no slouches at recovery, and like the US had a range of tank recovery vehicles and mobile workshops (what we would call 'Trains').  The big difference is that it is a whole lot easier to recover and refit your losses when you are advancing, and in the Northwest Europe Campaign, that advantage invariably fell to the Allies.  When you have possession of the battlefield, you have all the time in the world to tow in and evaluate the hulks for salvage or repair; when you are withdrawing under pressure, even minor breakdowns mean you have to drag out the demo charges and thermite grenades and blow the bitch in place to prevent enemy capture of usable gear.  The Germans were hardly oblivious to this, the Afrika Korps had survived by zealous salvage and scavenging for most of its life, but by 1944 in Europe, the Wehrmacht was pretty powerless to do much about it.     

[BadCat]

Here is an interesting testament to the "ruggedness" of the T-34...

56 years under water it it still runs.

http://www.mil.hiiumaa.ee...000_09_14_kurtna_T-34-36/

[FGL]

And as for ships--well, the only actual real battleship I've ever seen with my own eyes was an old Soviet one, on the Black Sea, during the mid-1990s.  It looked pretty big to me, but I suspect it was nothing, as compared with the Japanese Yamato of the second world war.

If you ever go to Houston stop by and see the Battleship Texas, it went through both World Wars and is now a 90+ year old floating museum

http://www.usstexasbb35.com/introduction.htm

I think there are floating naval museums in Corpus Christi (Carrier Lexington?) and I think Beaumont

[JohnnyReb]

Another Mr Ira story.

Mr Ira speaks highly of a Jewish captain from New York that was over them in some capacity. Although Mr Ira at that time wasn't very religious, this Jewish Captain was. Early every Sunday morning , from the time they landed at Normandy until way inside Germany, this Jewish Captain would leave and not return until he had snagged an Army Chaplin. The Chaplin might be Jewish, Catholic or protestant but never the less a Chaplin. They would stop whatever they were doing and for a few minutes have some sort of religious service and a word of prayer. The Jewish captain never failed to provide some sort of religious service on Sunday for his men.

During the week this same Jewish Captain ran back and forth to the rear area for parts, gas, orders, something. Once he left for the rear and didn't return. He and his driver just disappeared, no one knew what happened to them. The Jewish Captain was replaced by a Major who then made runs to the rear for whatever.

On their first run, the Major and his driver noticed this old German farmer about 80 years old standing at a cross roads waving as US Army trucks, jeeps and tanks went by. For three days they saw the old German farmer standing there waving from morning until night. Late one afternoon the Major decided to stop and see what the old German wanted. The old German didn't speak English and the major didn't speak German so the conversation was short. The old German would point down the side road and repeat "Comrade.... Kaput", "Comrade.... Kaput". The Major not trusting the old German, "borrowed" some troops off the road  and went to see what was up.

The old German took them down the side road to where a jeep had hit a mine or been shelled. Anyway, the jeep was overturned, it's driver was dead and in the ditch, with his lower legs in water trapped under the jeep was the Jewish Captain with multiple wound.......but still alive. He had been lying there for 3 or more days like that. (Mr Ira had no part in all this so this part may be a little bit of a stretch) The Major called in a medical glider(?). It had a doctor and nurse on board and landed on the road. They took care of the Jewish Captain and evacuated him to a hospital in the rear, then England and then back home. Mr Ira and his men didn't know all the details at the time but when the war was over and Mr Ira was back home in the states, the Jewish Captain called and informed him of what all had happened.

Mr Ira says that was the beginning of his long road to religion and being a better man. The Jewish Captain had lost both legs below the knees but was living a pretty good life anyway. Mr Ira says he was and still is convinced that it was the Jewish Captains extreme measures to see to it that the religious needs of his men were met that had moved God to spare the Jewish captains life. Mr Ira says that spending 9 months in a body cast during the Korean conflict gave him time to reflect on things and complete his religious journey. 

 

 

[dutch508]

I believe that was the T95, a WW2 project for the invasion of Japan, if it's what I think you mean - it used to be parked in front of the Armor School HQ, back when I was a TC in the the 194th and we were overrunning the last Brontosaurus defensive positions in our M60A1s.  No actual turret on it, extra sets of tracks on the outside to spread the ground pressure, and a hull-mounted 120mm gun ("Gun" in the artillerist sense, a long high-velocity, low-trajectory tube). 

that is the one I am thinking of.

[Wineslob]

You know, I never even thought about equating tanks (some aspects of tanks, not all aspects) with heavy agricultural and construction equipment, as did one member at freerepublic.  If I had done that, I wouldn't have even asked the question about the tank tracks.

When it comes to sizes and weights of things, that's a little bit too abstract for this mind to grasp, unless this mind has seen something in real life with which to compare it.

A good example of this is steam locomotives.  I imagine the "biggest" steam locomotive most here have ever seen, in operation, was perhaps the old 4-6-2s that were used on virtually all railways in the United States during the first half of the 20th century, and before.

The 4-6-2s were big, yes, and impressive when actually steamed up.

But having spent my own childhood alongside the main line of the Union Pacific railway, I've seen 4-8-4s in operation--exhibitions--and the enormous 4-6-2s were nothing, when compared with the 4-8-4s.

But then about four years ago, I saw a Union Pacific 4-8-8-4, the largest steam locomotive ever actually used, steamed up and running.  Man, there can't possibly be anything bigger than that.

And as for ships--well, the only actual real battleship I've ever seen with my own eyes was an old Soviet one, on the Black Sea, during the mid-1990s.  It looked pretty big to me, but I suspect it was nothing, as compared with the Japanese Yamato of the second world war.

The only submarines I've seen in real life couldn't have been more than 100' long; I saw them as the train passed them, abandoned and rusting on the beach near Portsmouth, England, like a row of dead fish all lined up.  I have no idea how old they must have been, and how they compared with submarines today.  From the train at least, they looked big enough to hold, maybe, half a dozen or ten men.

Military aircraft, well, I've seen a B-52, and can't imagine any aircraft larger than that.

Frank, here's one of the largest Steam Loco's I've ever seen in person:

http://images.google.com/...Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

It's at the Sacramento Railroad Museum. It is absolutely huge.

[djones520]

You know, I never even thought about equating tanks (some aspects of tanks, not all aspects) with heavy agricultural and construction equipment, as did one member at freerepublic.  If I had done that, I wouldn't have even asked the question about the tank tracks.

When it comes to sizes and weights of things, that's a little bit too abstract for this mind to grasp, unless this mind has seen something in real life with which to compare it.

A good example of this is steam locomotives.  I imagine the "biggest" steam locomotive most here have ever seen, in operation, was perhaps the old 4-6-2s that were used on virtually all railways in the United States during the first half of the 20th century, and before.

The 4-6-2s were big, yes, and impressive when actually steamed up.

But having spent my own childhood alongside the main line of the Union Pacific railway, I've seen 4-8-4s in operation--exhibitions--and the enormous 4-6-2s were nothing, when compared with the 4-8-4s.

But then about four years ago, I saw a Union Pacific 4-8-8-4, the largest steam locomotive ever actually used, steamed up and running.  Man, there can't possibly be anything bigger than that.

And as for ships--well, the only actual real battleship I've ever seen with my own eyes was an old Soviet one, on the Black Sea, during the mid-1990s.  It looked pretty big to me, but I suspect it was nothing, as compared with the Japanese Yamato of the second world war.

The only submarines I've seen in real life couldn't have been more than 100' long; I saw them as the train passed them, abandoned and rusting on the beach near Portsmouth, England, like a row of dead fish all lined up.  I have no idea how old they must have been, and how they compared with submarines today.  From the train at least, they looked big enough to hold, maybe, half a dozen or ten men.

Military aircraft, well, I've seen a B-52, and can't imagine any aircraft larger than that.

Like Sarge pointed out, the B-52 isn't really that big compaired to some of our other aircraft.



Thats a KC-135 refueling a C-5.

[ironhorsedriver]

Wasn't the German 88 by far the best flat trajectory anti tank gun going? I know it was designed as an antiaircraft gun. Aside from the Tigers armor, the 88 was what made it so awesome. That and some pretty damn good tank crews. I read the two volume story on Michael Wittman, this guy was pretty phenomenal in a Tank.