Tank and anti-aircraft gun found in German cellar
Discussion
The Imperial War Museum has a knocked out German tank destroyer (the one based on the Panther chassis, IIRC), which, rather chillingly, has two neat round holes in its side armour. It does not bear thinking too much about what happened to the crew. The holes were placed by a tank commanded by Hugh Griffiths, a Welsh Guards officer who was awarded the MC (I am not sure if for that engagement or for something else). I cannot recall whether he was in a Sherman or some other tank. He went on to be a very distinguished Judge, ending his career in the House of Lords. I appeared in front of him a few times when I was very junior and he was in the Court of Appeal. he was very civilized, courteous and fearsomely clever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Griffiths,_Baro...
I thought that the depiction of the Sherman vs Tiger engagement depicted in "Fury" was astonishingly well done. The film managed to convey the grisly nature of tank combat, much as "Saving Private Ryan" had displayed the terrifying nature of infantry fighting. "Band of Brothers" had that very scary sequence showing troops being shelled by artillery in woodland (splinters!). We are so lucky that most of us have escaped having to do this stuff, because of all those guys who did do (and some who still do) that stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Griffiths,_Baro...
I thought that the depiction of the Sherman vs Tiger engagement depicted in "Fury" was astonishingly well done. The film managed to convey the grisly nature of tank combat, much as "Saving Private Ryan" had displayed the terrifying nature of infantry fighting. "Band of Brothers" had that very scary sequence showing troops being shelled by artillery in woodland (splinters!). We are so lucky that most of us have escaped having to do this stuff, because of all those guys who did do (and some who still do) that stuff.
V8 Fettler said:
Data: http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/losses_year.html
Jan 1941 tonnage approx 100,000, July 1941 tonnage 80,000, August 1941 tonnage 92,000
Doesn't have much relevance unless you can also show figures for size of Allied Merchany Navy Jan 1941, production numbers (tonnage) of new merchant ships and also factor in the amount and type of cargo being shipped. The book I linked to early is a great read if you want to explore war production, losses (and impact). First chapter is on Battle of the Atlantic (U-boats, Connvoys) IIRC.Jan 1941 tonnage approx 100,000, July 1941 tonnage 80,000, August 1941 tonnage 92,000
DMN said:
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.
Also, once the M4 Sherman comes along, it's quickly realised that buidling 50,000+ of them outweighs any design short-comings. So less emphasis is put on new, improved designs, less they reduce production.
Breadvan72 said:
I thought that the depiction of the Sherman vs Tiger engagement depicted in "Fury" was astonishingly well done. The film managed to convey the grisly nature of tank combat, much as "Saving Private Ryan" had displayed the terrifying nature of infantry fighting.
I thought that it was astonishingly badly done 
It did convey the horrors of tank warfare as you say but the scene with the Tiger was just daft on so many levels. The scenes v the infantry and in the towns were much better though.
I must admit to being disappointed that all the tank battle sequences were contrived, when there were so many real actions that could have been depicted. However, I guess that came down to budget and vehicle availability.
The scene made the point that one Tiger versus several Shermans was not a fair fight (ie the Shermans would be in trouble). What was bad about it, I thought, was that the Tiger would have made every effort to keep the engagement at long range, and not be drawn into close combat. Also wouldn't it have pivoted when reversing, to keep its front facing the Sherman? The Shermans (when there were still a few of them left) would surely have tried to flank the Tiger. Leaving those points aside, because it is a film, what was good about it was the depiction of team work, and the sense of intense violence and fear.
The infantry scenes suffered, I thought, because the US infantry did not seem to lend much support when the Shermans attacked enemy infantry that were dug in and were known to have anti tank guns with them. Wouldn't the infantry have attempted to suppress the anti tank crews to allow the Shermans to close on the position?
The final battle was absurd. The SS could simply have sneaked up on the immobile Sherman and bunged Panzerfausts at it from behind.
Still, easy for us to be armchair experts, and it is of course only a movie!
The infantry scenes suffered, I thought, because the US infantry did not seem to lend much support when the Shermans attacked enemy infantry that were dug in and were known to have anti tank guns with them. Wouldn't the infantry have attempted to suppress the anti tank crews to allow the Shermans to close on the position?
The final battle was absurd. The SS could simply have sneaked up on the immobile Sherman and bunged Panzerfausts at it from behind.
Still, easy for us to be armchair experts, and it is of course only a movie!
TEKNOPUG said:
DMN said:
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.
Also, once the M4 Sherman comes along, it's quickly realised that buidling 50,000+ of them outweighs any design short-comings. So less emphasis is put on new, improved designs, less they reduce production.
The 17pdr to be fitted. It was dubbed The Black Prince. Shame it was never produced.
TEKNOPUG said:
V8 Fettler said:
Data: http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/losses_year.html
Jan 1941 tonnage approx 100,000, July 1941 tonnage 80,000, August 1941 tonnage 92,000
Doesn't have much relevance unless you can also show figures for size of Allied Merchany Navy Jan 1941, production numbers (tonnage) of new merchant ships and also factor in the amount and type of cargo being shipped. The book I linked to early is a great read if you want to explore war production, losses (and impact). First chapter is on Battle of the Atlantic (U-boats, Connvoys) IIRC.Jan 1941 tonnage approx 100,000, July 1941 tonnage 80,000, August 1941 tonnage 92,000
Definitive book is "The Real Cruel Sea", everything pales into insignificance.
Edit: data for tonnage gains/losses 3/4 of the way down this page: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-War...
Edited by V8 Fettler on Thursday 9th July 19:07
Breadvan72 said:
The scene made the point that one Tiger versus several Shermans was not a fair fight (ie the Shermans would be in trouble). What was bad about it, I thought, was that the Tiger would have made every effort to keep the engagement at long range, and not be drawn into close combat. Also wouldn't it have pivoted when reversing, to keep its front facing the Sherman? The Shermans (when there were still a few of them left) would surely have tried to flank the Tiger. Leaving those points aside, because it is a film, what was good about it was the depiction of team work, and the sense of intense violence and fear.
The infantry scenes suffered, I thought, because the US infantry did not seem to lend much support when the Shermans attacked enemy infantry that were dug in and were known to have anti tank guns with them. Wouldn't the infantry have attempted to suppress the anti tank crews to allow the Shermans to close on the position?
The final battle was absurd. The SS could simply have sneaked up on the immobile Sherman and bunged Panzerfausts at it from behind.
Still, easy for us to be armchair experts, and it is of course only a movie!
Never mind the technical errors, I want to know why it instantly went from day to night in the final battle and how Brad Pitt didn't have a single scar on his body despite being killed by a grenade thrown through the hatchThe infantry scenes suffered, I thought, because the US infantry did not seem to lend much support when the Shermans attacked enemy infantry that were dug in and were known to have anti tank guns with them. Wouldn't the infantry have attempted to suppress the anti tank crews to allow the Shermans to close on the position?
The final battle was absurd. The SS could simply have sneaked up on the immobile Sherman and bunged Panzerfausts at it from behind.
Still, easy for us to be armchair experts, and it is of course only a movie!
Guam said:
And that is why you are with us on here
Smart guy your grandad
Well yes.Smart guy your grandad
And my Dutch Grandad rowing across the North Sea with a friend to escape the Germans who were looking for resistance fighters.
Or my Grandma who escaped on foot (after the truck her and the other female Luftwaffe personnel were escaping the wreck of Berlin in ran out of petrol) and walked all the way from Berlin to her home in North Germany, and who barely escaped being killed by the Russians and by American fighters.
All smart people, all who did not want to talk about their experiences.
Breadvan72 said:
Negative Creep said:
[
Never mind the technical errors, I want to know why it instantly went from day to night in the final battle and how Brad Pitt didn't have a single scar on his body despite being killed by a grenade thrown through the hatch
Because Brad Pitt.Never mind the technical errors, I want to know why it instantly went from day to night in the final battle and how Brad Pitt didn't have a single scar on his body despite being killed by a grenade thrown through the hatch
This may sound odd, but I have always thought that one of the great tragedies of WW2 was the destruction of so much European heritage.
Although it appears the Germans have, to some extent, been better at trying to replace what was once lost.
Things like this, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_L%C3%BCbe...
From what I can see from a google image search, they seem to have largely replace the historic centre. Anyone know why we did not do the same here (e.g for Coventry)?
Although it appears the Germans have, to some extent, been better at trying to replace what was once lost.
Things like this, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_L%C3%BCbe...
From what I can see from a google image search, they seem to have largely replace the historic centre. Anyone know why we did not do the same here (e.g for Coventry)?
Breadvan72 said:
The Imperial War Museum has a knocked out German tank destroyer (the one based on the Panther chassis, IIRC), which, rather chillingly, has two neat round holes in its side armour. It does not bear thinking too much about what happened to the crew. The holes were placed by a tank commanded by Hugh Griffiths, a Welsh Guards officer who was awarded the MC (I am not sure if for that engagement or for something else). I cannot recall whether he was in a Sherman or some other tank. He went on to be a very distinguished Judge, ending his career in the House of Lords. I appeared in front of him a few times when I was very junior and he was in the Court of Appeal. he was very civilized, courteous and fearsomely clever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Griffiths,_Baro...
I thought that the depiction of the Sherman vs Tiger engagement depicted in "Fury" was astonishingly well done. The film managed to convey the grisly nature of tank combat, much as "Saving Private Ryan" had displayed the terrifying nature of infantry fighting. "Band of Brothers" had that very scary sequence showing troops being shelled by artillery in woodland (splinters!). We are so lucky that most of us have escaped having to do this stuff, because of all those guys who did do (and some who still do) that stuff.
Did you ever meet Sir Charles Winn during your legal travels or was he a bit before your time?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Griffiths,_Baro...
I thought that the depiction of the Sherman vs Tiger engagement depicted in "Fury" was astonishingly well done. The film managed to convey the grisly nature of tank combat, much as "Saving Private Ryan" had displayed the terrifying nature of infantry fighting. "Band of Brothers" had that very scary sequence showing troops being shelled by artillery in woodland (splinters!). We are so lucky that most of us have escaped having to do this stuff, because of all those guys who did do (and some who still do) that stuff.
Negative Creep said:
Breadvan72 said:
The scene made the point that one Tiger versus several Shermans was not a fair fight (ie the Shermans would be in trouble). What was bad about it, I thought, was that the Tiger would have made every effort to keep the engagement at long range, and not be drawn into close combat. Also wouldn't it have pivoted when reversing, to keep its front facing the Sherman? The Shermans (when there were still a few of them left) would surely have tried to flank the Tiger. Leaving those points aside, because it is a film, what was good about it was the depiction of team work, and the sense of intense violence and fear.
The infantry scenes suffered, I thought, because the US infantry did not seem to lend much support when the Shermans attacked enemy infantry that were dug in and were known to have anti tank guns with them. Wouldn't the infantry have attempted to suppress the anti tank crews to allow the Shermans to close on the position?
The final battle was absurd. The SS could simply have sneaked up on the immobile Sherman and bunged Panzerfausts at it from behind.
Still, easy for us to be armchair experts, and it is of course only a movie!
Never mind the technical errors, I want to know why it instantly went from day to night in the final battle and how Brad Pitt didn't have a single scar on his body despite being killed by a grenade thrown through the hatchThe infantry scenes suffered, I thought, because the US infantry did not seem to lend much support when the Shermans attacked enemy infantry that were dug in and were known to have anti tank guns with them. Wouldn't the infantry have attempted to suppress the anti tank crews to allow the Shermans to close on the position?
The final battle was absurd. The SS could simply have sneaked up on the immobile Sherman and bunged Panzerfausts at it from behind.
Still, easy for us to be armchair experts, and it is of course only a movie!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff