Tank and anti-aircraft gun found in German cellar
Discussion
IroningMan said:
Given that both were on the battlefield at a time when we were still building Valentines - and sending them to Russia - one thing that's less open to debate is that British tank design was criminally poor.
Really? Comet and Cromwell were both decent machines, and the Centurion was just a little late for real action. The heavies were poor which is why we ended up with the firefly.The Axis might have had the best tanks, but the allies had the best anti-tank gun in the QF 17 pounder. It was one of these fitted to a Sherman Firefly that took out the Tiger ace Michael Wittman.
On top of that, we had the best artillery in the 25 pounder (and artillery caused more casualties than any other weapon), plus we had the supply chains to ensure that both didn't run out of ammunition, or fuel, or rations for the crews.
And then we had the Lancaster and B-17 bombers. In September 1944 when German war production was at its peak, 35% of output was being directed to air defence. Yet by that time the allies had total control of the skies. That capacity was not available for making tanks or U-boats which would have had a better chance to stopping the allies. On top of that you have to factor in the damage the bomber campaign was doing.
I would recommend two of John Keegan's books, Six Armies in Normandy, and The Second World War. Both give the human angle as well as a superb technical analysis of why the allies won.
On top of that, we had the best artillery in the 25 pounder (and artillery caused more casualties than any other weapon), plus we had the supply chains to ensure that both didn't run out of ammunition, or fuel, or rations for the crews.
And then we had the Lancaster and B-17 bombers. In September 1944 when German war production was at its peak, 35% of output was being directed to air defence. Yet by that time the allies had total control of the skies. That capacity was not available for making tanks or U-boats which would have had a better chance to stopping the allies. On top of that you have to factor in the damage the bomber campaign was doing.
I would recommend two of John Keegan's books, Six Armies in Normandy, and The Second World War. Both give the human angle as well as a superb technical analysis of why the allies won.
RobDickinson said:
IroningMan said:
Given that both were on the battlefield at a time when we were still building Valentines - and sending them to Russia - one thing that's less open to debate is that British tank design was criminally poor.
Really? Comet and Cromwell were both decent machines, and the Centurion was just a little late for real action. The heavies were poor which is why we ended up with the firefly.Breadvan72 said:
Matilda 2s were decent enough in the first part of the war, although quickly outclassed.
They held up well against Italian armour and German 20mm and 37mm guns, but with only a 2pdr on board it must sometimes have felt like throwing rocks would have been more effective.RobDickinson said:
IroningMan said:
Given that both were on the battlefield at a time when we were still building Valentines - and sending them to Russia - one thing that's less open to debate is that British tank design was criminally poor.
Really? Comet and Cromwell were both decent machines, and the Centurion was just a little late for real action. The heavies were poor which is why we ended up with the firefly.By the end of the war the Tank was not the decisive weapon it once was, infantry units had a variety of anti tank weapons to use that were effective at short ranges and more importantly were trained to not panic. Allied infantry units also had lots of Anti-tank guns and ammo (by the end of the war the Germans had basically no access to good armour penetrating rounds) to hand and both of the British ones were very good, 6 pounders were effective to medium ranges and the 17 pounder great at all ranges, they were even better when they used Tungsten Discarding Sabot rounds.
V8 Fettler said:
There were no uboat losses Dec 1940 to Feb 1941, the RN couldn't accurately detect them at night. At that stage, if Doenitz had perhaps 60 uboats on patrol (traditional design, nothing fancy) then the UK is finished (can't build enough ships to balance losses inflicted by uboats, can't reduce the effectiveness of the uboats). There is no technical reason why Doenitz couldn't have had his 60 uboats on patrol late 1940, but - fortunately - Hitler had little understanding of the potential of the uboats
There may not have been any U-boat losses between Dec 1940 to Feb 1941 but losses to the merchant fleet were also correspondingly low, this was due in the main part to the weather in the North Atlantic being awful.robm3 said:
There's a t34, Panzer mk4 , StuG 3 and other stuff in a town in Slovakia called Banska Bystrica. All sitting outside with no bother (and have been for the last 30 years).
When you look closely at the T34, the castings are just horrible especially around the turret base, it was obviously rushed in production, whereas the Panzer is, relatively speaking, immaculate.
"Perfection is the enemy of good enough" was the Russian attitude. They didn't care if it looked bad and didn't see the need for unnecessary additions, like a speedometer. The German habit of over-engineering everything helped lose them the war.When you look closely at the T34, the castings are just horrible especially around the turret base, it was obviously rushed in production, whereas the Panzer is, relatively speaking, immaculate.
Underground city.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/biggest-se...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Suppressed-Still-S...
An interesting book, some of it is solid, some of it less so.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/biggest-se...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Suppressed-Still-S...
An interesting book, some of it is solid, some of it less so.
vonuber said:
Nah. The 8.8 PAK 43 probably was.
I'll concede that the 88 had slightly better armour penetration stats with APCR ammo (if it was available). But the QF 17 had greater muzzle velocity, was over a ton lighter, and considerably shorter, which meant it could be retro-fitted to allied medium tanks. It was even air portable, and was used by the 1st Airborne division at Arnhem.
Scuffers said:
Getting slightly O/T but I watched a few of the other videos there. What I can't believe is how well preserved these tanks are after sitting in lakes, mud and buried under forests. All for 70 odd years!
There seems to be hardly any rust, wheels rotate and then they start them up!!
Is this because of the thickness of metal resists corrosion?
Incredible anyhow.
As a contrast my old Alfa 156 used to rust before my eyes (and never start)...
robm3 said:
Scuffers said:
What I can't believe is how well preserved these tanks are after sitting in lakes, mud and buried under forests. All for 70 odd years!There seems to be hardly any rust, wheels rotate and then they start them up!!
Not so sure about the 17 pounder being good at all ranges; apparently, it was not accurate above short ranges.
Just read a book about the Churchill, and the Churchill crews felt quite well protected against Panthers etc. "D-day to Victory- Sgt Trevor Greenwood"
The full story of Sherman myths, and interesting adaptions for the firefly are here.
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY
Just read a book about the Churchill, and the Churchill crews felt quite well protected against Panthers etc. "D-day to Victory- Sgt Trevor Greenwood"
The full story of Sherman myths, and interesting adaptions for the firefly are here.
https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY
Tango13 said:
V8 Fettler said:
There were no uboat losses Dec 1940 to Feb 1941, the RN couldn't accurately detect them at night. At that stage, if Doenitz had perhaps 60 uboats on patrol (traditional design, nothing fancy) then the UK is finished (can't build enough ships to balance losses inflicted by uboats, can't reduce the effectiveness of the uboats). There is no technical reason why Doenitz couldn't have had his 60 uboats on patrol late 1940, but - fortunately - Hitler had little understanding of the potential of the uboats
There may not have been any U-boat losses between Dec 1940 to Feb 1941 but losses to the merchant fleet were also correspondingly low, this was due in the main part to the weather in the North Atlantic being awful.Jan 1941 tonnage approx 100,000, July 1941 tonnage 80,000, August 1941 tonnage 92,000
PlankWithANailIn said:
RobDickinson said:
IroningMan said:
Given that both were on the battlefield at a time when we were still building Valentines - and sending them to Russia - one thing that's less open to debate is that British tank design was criminally poor.
Really? Comet and Cromwell were both decent machines, and the Centurion was just a little late for real action. The heavies were poor which is why we ended up with the firefly.By the end of the war the Tank was not the decisive weapon it once was, infantry units had a variety of anti tank weapons to use that were effective at short ranges and more importantly were trained to not panic. Allied infantry units also had lots of Anti-tank guns and ammo (by the end of the war the Germans had basically no access to good armour penetrating rounds) to hand and both of the British ones were very good, 6 pounders were effective to medium ranges and the 17 pounder great at all ranges, they were even better when they used Tungsten Discarding Sabot rounds.
The thing that really held back British tank design was the strict size limitations placed on them by the war office. They had to fit on British railway trucks and so where limited in width. Once that was dropped, we produced one of the best tanks of its time - the Centurian.
robm3 said:
Scuffers said:
Getting slightly O/T but I watched a few of the other videos there. What I can't believe is how well preserved these tanks are after sitting in lakes, mud and buried under forests. All for 70 odd years!
There seems to be hardly any rust, wheels rotate and then they start them up!!
Is this because of the thickness of metal resists corrosion?
Incredible anyhow.
As a contrast my old Alfa 156 used to rust before my eyes (and never start)...
This is why we have "bog bodies", which have survived sometimes thousands of years with very barely any decay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff