Tank and anti-aircraft gun found in German cellar

[RYH64E]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

That is possible, conscussive trauma, all internal injuries, nothing external.

Somewhat unlikely though, considering the confined small space inside a Sherman tank.

The other thing that seemed wrong to me is that Brad Pitt is the same age as me, although we've both obviously retained our boyish good looks and full heads of hair, would the army really let 50 something years olds loose in a tank? I got the impression that war was a game for youngsters, many pilots for instance were ridiculously young, would it not have been the same for tank commanders?

[julian64]

julian64 said:

I remember as a child a chap called neville browning when I used to play around stapleford aerodrome. He was always a fun chap to be around and always nice as pie to me. I think it was him that made he hate flying from a very young age.
I was always a bit shocked to find out about his war time exploits as he seemed like such a nice grandad type. Bit of a loony by all accounts. I'm not sure that combat in any form is very healthy for the psyche

Good thread, after mentioning this chap I couldn't find much on the internet about him, and I think he needs someone to post some material for people to remember.

What I did manage to find on paper suggests he fought in planes in both world wars. In the first world war he flew sopwith cubs, and was obviously pretty good at it as in the second world war he was in charge I think of a squadron of spitfires. I could be wrong here but I think at one point in the second world war his particular spitfire had the guns removed and wing changes attached for high fast flying in and out of hotspots reccon to try and evade enemy fighters.

He survived both wars and apparently has the claim to fame for teaching emila earhart to fly, although again I don't have much detail here.

What i do know is that he often did aerobatic displays which culminated in inverted flying very close to the ground in his zlyn, and when I say close to the ground I mean nothing you would see in any airshow today. I remember these as a child where everyone would duck in the crowd.

Unfortunately a little too close at an air display was his end.

I think its fitting that if someone searched for him on the internet there really ought to be something recorded about a man who lived a life larger that most of us will ever know.

[TEKNOPUG]

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Not finding and not sinking the uboats is quite relevant; find and sink lots of uboats and the problem is reversed (see Black May). Type and cargo is irrelevant when it's a tonnage war, lose the ship and it can't be used again. Production numbers were relatively low until the US built liberty ships, Sept 1941 onwards, hence greater monthly tonnage losses later in the campaign are not so crucial because replacement (and more) is available.

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

I never said anything about not sinking U-Boats It was the RN going on the attack and hunting U-Boats, rather than shepherding convoys, that was the turning point. I merely stated that listing tonnage sunk is meaningless without looking at total production, tonnage actually sucessfully transported, effects on supplies & war production at home etc.

[V8 Fettler]

TEKNOPUG said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Not finding and not sinking the uboats is quite relevant; find and sink lots of uboats and the problem is reversed (see Black May). Type and cargo is irrelevant when it's a tonnage war, lose the ship and it can't be used again. Production numbers were relatively low until the US built liberty ships, Sept 1941 onwards, hence greater monthly tonnage losses later in the campaign are not so crucial because replacement (and more) is available.

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

I never said anything about not sinking U-Boats It was the RN going on the attack and hunting U-Boats, rather than shepherding convoys, that was the turning point. I merely stated that listing tonnage sunk is meaningless without looking at total production, tonnage actually sucessfully transported, effects on supplies & war production at home etc.

Links back to Tango13's post yesterday. Doenitz had very limited resources early in the war, no losses over three months was a boost for the uboats. The key period is early in the war before American shipbuilding production can ramp up, by late 1941 construction of non-tankers exceeds losses.

Build and loss rates for United Nations (starts 1941)



British War Economy, Hancock and Gowing

"Hunter-killer" support groups cannot operate effectively without radar, hence the importance of Vanoc's attack in early 1941.

[anonymous-user]

RYH64E said:

Somewhat unlikely though, considering the confined small space inside a Sherman tank.

The other thing that seemed wrong to me is that Brad Pitt is the same age as me, although we've both obviously retained our boyish good looks and full heads of hair, would the army really let 50 something years olds loose in a tank? I got the impression that war was a game for youngsters, many pilots for instance were ridiculously young, would it not have been the same for tank commanders?

When I was a kid, I watched the WW2 films and thought that the war was fought by blokes in their 30s and 40s. This was because the actors, many of whom had been in the War for real*, were that age when they made the films. "Memphis Belle", an OK but flawed film, was one of the first I can recall seeing in which the 19 and 20 year old combatants were played by 19 and 20 year old actors. It is extraordinary to recall how young most of the junior fighting blokes were, and amazing to read of only just slightly older blokes who commanded warships and battalions when still a good way off 30 .


* One example: Richard Todd took part in the sensationally effective glider assault on Pegasus Bridge on D Day. This was an attack that included what Air Marshall Trafford Leigh Mallory said was the greatest feat of military flying of the whole war, as Sergeant Jim Wallwork brought his heavily laden glider in close to the bridge, in the dark, despite extensive anti glider defences, having separated from the bomber tow ship some way out from the target. Todd was a junior officer in the Ox and Bucks. In the 60s film "The Longest Day" he played his real life CO, Major Howard. Another actor played Lieutenant Todd.

[Beati Dogu]

Guy Gibson was only 24 when he commanded the Dam Busters raid.

[V8 Fettler]

Breadvan72 said:

When I was a kid, I watched the WW2 films and thought that the war was fought by blokes in their 30s and 40s. This was because the actors, many of whom had been in the War for real*, were that age when they made the films. "Memphis Belle", an OK but flawed film, was one of the first I can recall seeing in which the 19 and 20 year old combatants were played by 19 and 20 year old actors. It is extraordinary to recall how young most of the junior fighting blokes were, and amazing to read of only just slightly older blokes who commanded warships and battalions when still a good way off 30 .


* One example: Richard Todd took part in the sensationally effective glider assault on Pegasus Bridge on D Day. This was an attack that included what Air Marshall Trafford Leigh Mallory said was the greatest feat of military flying of the whole war, as Sergeant Jim Wallwork brought his heavily laden glider in close to the bridge, in the dark, despite extensive anti glider defences, having separated from the bomber tow ship some way out from the target. Todd was a junior officer in the Ox and Bucks. In the 60s film "The Longest Day" he played his real life CO, Major Howard. Another actor played Lieutenant Todd.

Including the scene where actor Todd gives an order to character Todd.

Wellum would have been 18 as the Battle of Britain started

[jmorgan]

A good few years ago, the folks were visiting the bridge and got chatting to an elderly English gent who gave them the history from landing to end. Realised after who he was when the cafe owner confirmed it.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Breadvan72 said:

When I was a kid, I watched the WW2 films and thought that the war was fought by blokes in their 30s and 40s. This was because the actors, many of whom had been in the War for real*, were that age when they made the films. "Memphis Belle", an OK but flawed film, was one of the first I can recall seeing in which the 19 and 20 year old combatants were played by 19 and 20 year old actors. It is extraordinary to recall how young most of the junior fighting blokes were, and amazing to read of only just slightly older blokes who commanded warships and battalions when still a good way off 30 .

similarly, all the actors were frightfully posh RP types

the real pilots were a mix of all sorts of classes and accents

[Mr_B]

Hugo a Gogo said:

similarly, all the actors were frightfully posh RP types

the real pilots were a mix of all sorts of classes and accents

Indeed.I think at the time of the Battle of Britain, 70% were state educated and 20% were foreign.

Richard Todd commented on his role playing his commander during this rather short but fitting tribute to the man in the BBC news report of his death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K6Txr1SLf8

[hidetheelephants]

PlankWithANailIn said:

The only really bad British Tank was the Crusader III and only because it's engine didn't work. It was still as good as the early Panzer III and IV's it was fielded against when the crews could get it going.

Shirley you jest; a read of 'The Great British Tank Scandal' would dissuade anyone of this opinion, the Crusader was one of the better ones.

[IroningMan]

hidetheelephants said:

PlankWithANailIn said:

The only really bad British Tank was the Crusader III and only because it's engine didn't work. It was still as good as the early Panzer III and IV's it was fielded against when the crews could get it going.

Shirley you jest; a read of 'The Great British Tank Scandal' would dissuade anyone of this opinion, the Crusader was one of the better ones.

A J Smithers' Rude Mechanicals is a little dry, but worth a read, too.

[yellowjack]

PlankWithANailIn said:

The Brits just missed getting the Centurion into battle, if we had there would have been no argument about what the best medium tank was. In the end we had to settle for best medium tank in the post war victory parade.

Centurion was an incredibly effective design, and would truly have become a "battle winning asset" if it had been developed in time to see service in the European theatre before VE day. We (the British army in general, and the Royal Engineers in particular) were still fielding them in front line service into the 1990s. I recall there being a reluctance from the 'tankies' to field any of their Challenger 1s for an obstacle breaching demonstration for a Sandhurst course 'final exercise' that took place on the Soltau-Lüneburg training area in Germany in the early '90s. 32 Armd Engr Regt had to use their 105mm armed Cents to stand in for the modern armour. Their 165mm Centurion AVREs were fielded in the '91 Gulf War, testament to the effectiveness of a design first realised in response to a requirement raised in the 1940s.

ETA: War was not only a young man's game in WWII. Most of my section in 1991 were in their teens (I was 19). My section commander was mid-twenties, and our 2ic in his early twenties. When I arrived at my first posting in 1989, the bulk of the rank and file were youngsters just like me. Anyone over 25 was regarded as an "old sweat", and most were revered for their field experience and what they could impart to the youngsters. There was no-one over 40 who wasn't a late-entry officer, or a senior warrant officer in a technical trade.

Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 16th July 10:45

[Mr_B]

yellowjack said:

Centurion was an incredibly effective design, and would truly have become a "battle winning asset" if it had been developed in time to see service in the European theatre before VE day. We (the British army in general, and the Royal Engineers in particular) were still fielding them in front line service into the 1990s. I recall there being a reluctance from the 'tankies' to field any of their Challenger 1s for an obstacle breaching demonstration for a Sandhurst course 'final exercise' that took place on the Soltau-Lüneburg training area in Germany in the early '90s. 32 Armd Engr Regt had to use their 105mm armed Cents to stand in for the modern armour. Their 165mm Centurion AVREs were fielded in the '91 Gulf War, testament to the effectiveness of a design first realised in response to a requirement raised in the 1940s.

Reminds me of Salvage Squad and their Centurion tank and the story behind it from Suez to Gulf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLPbmUIyR-8&li...

[yellowjack]

Mr_B said:

Reminds me of Salvage Squad and their Centurion tank and the story behind it from Suez to Gulf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLPbmUIyR-8&li...

Damn you!

I'm watching it right now - you owe me 50 minutes...

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that before!

ETA: I actually knew 'Foz', the tank commander in that film. Not well, but there were only two units with Armoured Engineers, and we worked together quite a lot. Foz was 32 Regt, I was with 23 Engr Regt, a "Close Support" Engineer Regiment which didn't have the Centurions (we had Chieftain instead), but it brought back memories all the same. Thank you very much for that link.

Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 16th July 11:55

[Saddle bum]

yellowjack said:

Centurion was an incredibly effective design, and would truly have become a "battle winning asset" if it had been developed in time to see service in the European theatre before VE day. We (the British army in general, and the Royal Engineers in particular) were still fielding them in front line service into the 1990s. I recall there being a reluctance from the 'tankies' to field any of their Challenger 1s for an obstacle breaching demonstration for a Sandhurst course 'final exercise' that took place on the Soltau-Lüneburg training area in Germany in the early '90s. 32 Armd Engr Regt had to use their 105mm armed Cents to stand in for the modern armour. Their 165mm Centurion AVREs were fielded in the '91 Gulf War, testament to the effectiveness of a design first realised in response to a requirement raised in the 1940s.

Cents were given to FOOs, weren't they?

[Mr_B]

yellowjack said:

Mr_B said:

Reminds me of Salvage Squad and their Centurion tank and the story behind it from Suez to Gulf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLPbmUIyR-8&li...

Damn you!

I'm watching it right now - you owe me 50 minutes...

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that before!

ETA: I actually knew 'Foz', the tank commander in that film. Not well, but there were only two units with Armoured Engineers, and we worked together quite a lot. Foz was 32 Regt, I was with 23 Engr Regt, a "Close Support" Engineer Regiment which didn't have the Centurions (we had Chieftain instead), but it brought back memories all the same. Thank you very much for that link.

Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 16th July 11:55

No probs. Glad you enjoyed it.

[irocfan]

On the subject of 'best tank' this book makes for an interesting read - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Armored-Champion-The-Tanks...

with some (logical) surprises thrown in

[Saddle bum]

irocfan said:

On the subject of 'best tank' this book makes for an interesting read - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Armored-Champion-The-Tanks...

with some (logical) surprises thrown in

The obvious candidate, when compared to its contemporaries, is the Centurion.

Good armour protection. The Worlds's best tank gun, 105mm L7 and a de-tuned Merlin Meteor for its power plant. The Isrealis bought up every one they could lay their hands on.

[IroningMan]

L7 didn't enter service until the 60s, though.

That aside, the Centurion was an excellent piece of kit - and one that we could have had in servicing 1943 if we'd actually given a stuff about such things.