PDA

View Full Version : Quick Q. WHich was more powerful/better? The German 88mm or the British 17 pounder?



Xiolablu3
10-07-2008, 02:56 PM
Just watching a good series on tanks - 'TANKS!' Excellent series mostly on German WW2 Armour. Its made by Bob Caruthers who some of you will know made the also excellent 'Battlefield' series.

Here is the series for anyone interested, Starts with the 3rd one down on this page.


http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/searchandbrowse/productsea...x?type=4&basic=tanks (http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/searchandbrowse/productsearchresults.aspx?type=4&basic=tanks)

The first 2 are a different prog. All of these can be found to watch on Veoh client...

http://www.veoh.com/

SImply install the veoh client and search for the episode name, for example 'sturmartillerie' or 'steel tigers', and you can watch them. Plenty of other excellent stuff on there too, well worth installing. If anyone needs help just ask me.



Anyway, back to the question. A German Tanker from WW2 being interviewed says at one point - The 88mm was an excellent weapon and probably the best Anti -tank weapon of the war up until the British 17 pounder arrived.

Gun experts, which was the best weapon of these two? I am mainly talking AT capability vs other tanks, eg penetration and destructability. Is this German tanker correct in saying the 17 pounder was the better AT gun?

Thanks for your opinions.

Xiolablu3
10-07-2008, 02:56 PM
Just watching a good series on tanks - 'TANKS!' Excellent series mostly on German WW2 Armour. Its made by Bob Caruthers who some of you will know made the also excellent 'Battlefield' series.

Here is the series for anyone interested, Starts with the 3rd one down on this page.


http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/searchandbrowse/productsea...x?type=4&basic=tanks (http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/searchandbrowse/productsearchresults.aspx?type=4&basic=tanks)

The first 2 are a different prog. All of these can be found to watch on Veoh client...

http://www.veoh.com/

SImply install the veoh client and search for the episode name, for example 'sturmartillerie' or 'steel tigers', and you can watch them. Plenty of other excellent stuff on there too, well worth installing. If anyone needs help just ask me.



Anyway, back to the question. A German Tanker from WW2 being interviewed says at one point - The 88mm was an excellent weapon and probably the best Anti -tank weapon of the war up until the British 17 pounder arrived.

Gun experts, which was the best weapon of these two? I am mainly talking AT capability vs other tanks, eg penetration and destructability. Is this German tanker correct in saying the 17 pounder was the better AT gun?

Thanks for your opinions.

Mr_Zooly
10-07-2008, 03:06 PM
88mm versus 76.2mm, i guess muzzle velocity makes a difference but I was under the impression that the 88 was a killer that could penetrate all allied armo(u)r and the 76.2 could not beat the tigers armo(u)r except from the rear.
maybe I am wrong which is unlikely as i'm never wrong, just not always right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vipez-
10-07-2008, 03:19 PM
I don't know which 88 mm we are talking about. 88mm KwK L/56 of the Tiger I? And by best if you mean armor penetration it's a tough choise.

Comparing the 75mm KwK L/70 (Panther) and 17 pounder results very close results in armor penetration. AFAIK, I have heard 17 pounder having problems with accuracy. Hitting with APDS was the problem for 17 pounder, as the round was terribly inaccurate according to some sources. But I'm not expert on this. So the 75 mm KwK L/70 will probably emerge as winner here, and it was more than capable dealing with allied tanks. And a very accurate gun.

Comparing 88mm KwK L/56 (Tiger I) and 17 pounder might give 17 pounder some advantages in armor penetration. But 88mm KwK L/56 was more than enought to kill any allied tank of the time, so this was not a problem. Plus it had better HE-effect, than 17 pounder.

Comparing 88mm KwK 43 L71 (Tiger II) and 17 pounder probably leaves no doubt about the winner. 88mm KwK 43 L71 is clearly the better contender, fires heavier shell at higher velocity. The ultimate 88 mm of the war.

So I would rank the guns (only by armor penetration) :

#1: 88mm KwK 43 L71
#2 75mm KwK L/70
#3 17 pounder
#4 88mm KwK L/56

ImpStarDuece
10-07-2008, 03:42 PM
It is also dependent on the ammunition being fired by each cannon.

If the 17 pounder is firing SVDS (now known as APDS) then it has the advantage in penetration over everything except the 88mm/L71. The thing about Sabot ammo is that its penetration falls off less at long ranges, giving it close to the penetration of the 88mm at ranges over 1500 m

However if it does fire SVDS the gun has problems with accuracy, notably with Sabot seperation, which was a little unpredictable.

I'd rate them this way:

88mm/L74 (Flak 41) (APCR)
88mm/L74 (Pak 43) (APCR)
17 pounder (SVDS)
75mm/L70 (APCR)
88mm/L56 (KwK 36/Flak 37)

Don't forget stuff like the Russian 100mm, the US 76 mm firing HVAP shot, the US 90 mm firing HVAP shot and the British QF 77mm (a cut down 17 lbr) firing SVDS. With the exception of the US 76mm all of these could penetrate 200mm or more of armour at 500 meters.

Xiolablu3
10-07-2008, 03:50 PM
Thanks for your input guys. He is talking about the Tigers 88mm and not the King Tigers I think , Viper.

After reviewing it again, what the German WW2 tanker actually says is 'The British 17 pounder on the late model Sherman was as good as the 88mm, in some cases even better especially when using ammunition with a tungstun core.' which is exactly in line with what Impstardeuce posted - it depends on the ammuntion.

If you want to watch the episode its the 'Tanks! - Ardennes offensive' episode, which shows some excellent footage and closeup's of King Tigers, Jagdtigers, Hetzers, Jagdpanzer 4's and much more.

Install the Veoh client from my above post and search for 'ardennes offensive'. Its the first entry to come up. I heavily recommend it and also the other episodes. The 'Sturmartillerie' episode is especially good IMO. Then again all the episodes are very good, just like all Bob Carruthers stuff I have seen.

leitmotiv
10-07-2008, 03:56 PM
Look at it this way, the 17pdr was a 76mm gun, that's a 3" gun. The 88mm L/70 anti-tank gun and tank gun (Tiger II, Jagdpanther) had a larger bore (about 1/2") and about the same barrel length. The 88 L/70 was a gawdawful destructive weapon and the 17pdr was comparable to the superb German long 75mm in the Panther. Both the long 88 and the 17pdr were superb weapons, but the 88 was more destructive.

Xiolablu3
10-07-2008, 04:02 PM
I think the 75mm gun in the panther was known as a better AT weapon than the 88mm Tiger gun wasnt it Leit?

ALl the accounts I see place the 75mm Panther gun ahead of the Tiger 1's gun.

Size of the bore doesnt always mean a better AT gun, its the velocity of the shell which counts for as much.

Blutarski2004
10-07-2008, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just watching a good series on tanks - 'TANKS!' Excellent series mostly on German WW2 Armour.

Here is the series for anyone interested, Starts with the 3rd one down on this page.


http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/searchandbrowse/productsea...x?type=4&basic=tanks (http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/searchandbrowse/productsearchresults.aspx?type=4&basic=tanks)

The first 2 are a different prog. All of these can be found to watch on Veoh client...

http://www.veoh.com/

SImply install the veoh client and search for the episode name, for example 'sturmartillerie' or 'steel tigers', and you can watch them. Plenty of other excellent stuff on there too, well worth installing. If anyone needs help just ask me.

Anyway, back to the question. A German Tanker from WW2 being interviewed says at one point - The 88mm was an excellent weapon and probably the best Anti -tank weapon of the war up until the British 17 pounder arrived.

Gun experts, which was the best weapon of these two? I am mainly talking AT capability vs other tanks, eg penetration and destructability. Is this German tanker correct in saying the 17 pounder was the better AT gun?

Thanks for your opinions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... We first need to decide which 88mm gun is under consideration, the L56 or the L71. Then we need to decide whether the ammunition is to be considered when judging the overall efficiency of the gun [I think it ought to be].

Penetration is given in mm of rolled homogeneous plate @ 30deg inclination at 1000 meters.

German target armor plates of 81-120mm thickness are 95-105 hardness and 279-309 Brinnell Number; plates of 121-150mm are 80-90 hardness and 235-265 Brinnell number. British target armot plate is specified as "MQ" type. The quality of the test armor can materially affect penetration results, so take these values as generally indicative rather than conclusive.


88mm/L71
Pzgr39/43 APHE - MV 1000 m/s__________165mm
Pzgr40/43 APCR - MV 1130 m/s__________197mm

88mm/L56
Pzgr39 APHE - MV 773 m/s______________100mm
Pzgr40 APCR - MV 930 m/s______________138mm

75mm/L70
Pzgr39 APHE - MV 935 m/s_____________111mm
Pzgr40 APCR - MV 1120 m/s_____________149mm

- - -

17-pounder
AP ---------- MV 884 m/s_____________110mm
APC---------- MV 884 m/s_____________109mm
APCBC-------- MV 884 m/s_____________131mm
APDS--------- MV 1204 m/s_____________192mm

M_Gunz
10-07-2008, 04:57 PM
I think you need to consider sights, ROF and ammo capacity, unless you want to compare AT guns?
There was both 88mm and 17 pdr AT guns used.
Otherwise Pz VIe or maybe Elephant vs which of many British tanks and tank hunters?
You need more penetration from the Allied side.

general_kalle
10-07-2008, 05:11 PM
ive heard that the 75mm cannon fitted to late panzer IV, Panzer V Panther had in fact higher muzzle velocity than the 88mm but the 88 were sligtly bigger and therefore fitted to the tiger tanks. but i may be wrong.

JSG72
10-07-2008, 05:15 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

For the links Xiolablu3.

"Armoured Firepower" The development of tank armament 1939-45. by Peter Gudgin is a good book to read.Giving British,German,U.S.and Russian. Advancements in Tank armour, armament,ammunition, sighting and control systems. Also. Ian V. Hoggs books on WW2 weapons are very good

leitmotiv
10-07-2008, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the 75mm gun in the panther was known as a better AT weapon than the 88mm Tiger gun wasnt it Leit?

ALl the accounts I see place the 75mm Panther gun ahead of the Tiger 1's gun.

Size of the bore doesnt always mean a better AT gun, its the velocity of the shell which counts for as much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right you are, but you are thinking of the shorter 88 on the Tiger I---the longer L/70 88 on the Tig II was just simply murder incorporated. There is a nasty description of a Tiger II ambush on a column of American Shermans in DEATH TRAPS. About a company of Tiger IIs jumped the Shermans and charged right into them shooting all the way. Total massacre.

Zeus-cat
10-07-2008, 07:05 PM
Another factor to consider is that the Germans had very little of the rare metals used to make the best armor piercing shot. You can have the best gun in the world, but if you don't have the right ammunition for it the gun isn't useful.

josephs1959
10-07-2008, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
You can have the best gun in the world, but if you don't have the right ammunition for it the gun isn't useful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't useful? Hmmm? The Tungstun Core added about an inch (20mm-25mm)on average to the shell's penertration.
Also sighting is important, you can't hit what you can't see. German Optics.
The German gunners used to aim for the white star on the side of the sherman's, I mean ronson's hull. I have a picture of a group of German's checking out their handywork from an 88mm and by the look if it. The center of the shot hole is off of center of the Star by no more than an inch.
Now the picture caption does not state at what range that shot was or for that matter if the turret and or target was moving.
There are a lot of different factors to hitting a target of course;
1)If you are well concealed and they are moving.
2)If you are moving and they are well concealed.
3)Your speed vs. target speed
4)Turret speed of traverse.
5)Gun stabilization.

Despite the German's not having the "right ammunition" There are numerous books that state again and again throughout the entire war from Russia 41' to the battle of the Rhur 45' of German tankers just essentionally picking off their targets one by one. Until finally running out of ammo.
Of course that was partly due to better training of the German crews.But their equpment was by no means a slouch.

Oh, and early in the war the german's did have tungstun tipped ammo for the 50mm gun of the later model MK III's with the long barrel. But supplies ran out as the war continued.

jarink
10-07-2008, 07:43 PM
There are actually a myriad of factors that can affect armor penetration besides the gun: range, striking angle, nature of the armor (rolled homogenous, cast, face hardened, etc.) and even the ratio of the diameter of the projectile to the size of the armor plate being struck.

For the guns being discussed (88mm L/56, 88mm L/71 and 17-pounder) I'd have to go with the 88mm L/56 as being the better gun. It had extremely good armor penetration, a good HE round and wasn't a big as a house.

Nah, the real winner is the M2 105mm Howitzer firing HEAT ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Buzzsaw-
10-07-2008, 08:49 PM
Salute

A fundamental error in the above figures in regards to the German ammunition and penetration:

Germany was cut off from tungsten sources in 1943 and production of APCR, (which uses tungsten) ceased shortly after. The remaining ammunition was turned over for industrial use of the tungsten, and was not issued to the army.

German tankers were limited to standard APCBC ammunition after early '44, and APCBC ammo had considerably less penetration performance than APCR.

Panther: L-70 75mm APCBC

Distance

500m 1000m 1500m 2000m

Penetration

124mm 111mm 99mm 89mm


Tiger I: L-56 88mm APCBC

110mm 100mm 91mm 84mm


Tiger II: L-71 88mm APCBC

185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm


As you can see, the penetration of the standard APCBC rounds are not nearly as good as with APCR.

Still, the real issue is how effective the weapons were versus the enemy armour.

Since the standard frontal armour on the front of the Sherman, (with the exception of the Jumbo model which was 152mm) was around 75mm, you can see the German weapons were more than capable of penetrating.

On the other side, the only mid 1944 Allied weapon which could gurantee to penetrate the Panther from the front was the 17 lber whether it was in the Firefly, Challenger, Archer TD, or in the form of the AT gun. The Tiger I was easier, but the Tiger II was very difficult.

Even the 76mm L-55 M1 gun which equipped later versions of the Sherman, and the 3 inch L-53 M7 gun which equipped the M10 Wolverine, when firing HVAP ammunition, had no likelyhood of penetrating the front glacis of the Panther on the first shot. Usually cracking of the armour would occur as a result of the first hit from HVAP, but a second hit was required in the same area to penetrate and knock out the target. The chances of getting a penetration in the turret was slightly better. And of course, HVAP ammunition was in short supply, only 5 rounds were issued to each tank or TD by Feb. '45.

From September of 1944, the M-36 Jackson TD, with its 90mm main gun started to equalize the situation. This weapon had very good performance, in fact better than any of the German weapons firing APCBC.

Range

457m 914m 1371m 1828m


Penetration APCBC

129mm 122mm 114mm 106mm

Penetration HVAP

221mm 199mm 176mm 156mm

Probably, if you are going to compare guns, you should consider this weapon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There were only about 1500 M-36's produced by war's end.

And then finally, the Pershing arrived in the final days, also equipped with a 90mm gun.

And of course, the whole discussion might be considered somewhat off track, since Allied tank crews reported that their most commonly encountered opposition was German AT guns or rocket propelled weapons, they rarely encountered enemy tankers.

The stats show most Shermans were lost to mines, Anti-tank guns, or infantry anti-tank weapons.

That being of course, because the Germans didn't have a lot of tanks, their production numbers were way down compared to the western Allies or Soviet.

For example, there were only 1,355 Tiger I and some 500 Tiger II tanks produced. Even when you bring in the Panther or Panzer IV, the first only totaled approx. 7,000, and the later approx. 9000.

Compare that to some 48,000 Shermans, in all their multitude of varieties, and 57,000 T-34's, and you see why the German tanks were comparatively rare beasts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The average American Infantry division had a battalion of M4's, and a battalion of M10 TD's attached as part of its standard TO&E. That is more AFV's than a Panzergrenadier division.

The mismatched production totals were partially a result of the very expensive to manufacture German tank designs. Each Tiger or Panther cost roughly 3 times as much to produce as a Sherman.

The result was that most of the time, (with the exception of the left flank at Normandy, when the British and Canadians faced a concentrated force of Panzer divisions, or the month of the Ardennes campaign) the lowly German infantryman in his trench had to face Allied tanks with only the help of the divisional AT guns and his own Panzerfaust. And if you asked him what he thought, while an armoured beast approached, firing high explosive at his foxhole, he'd probably tell you that any friendly tank, whatever the variety, would be more welcome than none.

BobbyBrinks
10-07-2008, 09:37 PM
While from all the data already posted, it appears like the 88mm is the heavier hitting gun. But strictly looking at the data can be misleading sometimes. Aside from hitting power, there are a number of things that make an AT gun great or merely ok. The first thing when I think of AT guns is that they are ambush weapons.

The QF17lb sits lower on the ground (I believe, at least the 88mm in pictures looks slightly taller.) which can be used to its advantage. Alternatively, one can argue that the 88 has a better field of fire because it sits higher. I have never fired either, so I have no clue which is more desirable for hunting tanks. My hunch is that the longer but shorter height QF17lber is more desirable. The next thing I would look at are sights, traverse speed, reload time and mobility(perhaps someone has data on these?).

Most of the posts here are focusing soley on penetration. I know that WWiionline is kinda a black sheep on these forums, but the AT guns are rather fun to use in that game (they have problems for sure, i have no doubt on that). One of the things that seperates good AT gunners in that game is that they are patient, and wait for tanks to come well within range before firing. They fire once, knock the tank out and then become silent again waiting for there next victim. AT guns firing at max range at tanks are rarely successful and are picked off first. So i would not merely rank the 88mm better because it has better penetration at very extreme ranges. Both guns do a great job of obliterating tanks at 1-1.5km, i think you need to look elsewhere to find an advantage between the two.

The QF17lber has a split fork tail, while the 88mm has a different mount. (4 leg diamond shape?) Anyone know which is easier to move? One disadvantage for sure of the QF17lber is that it cannot easily rotate 360degrees. I am unsure about the 88mm gun, but my impression is it can be cranked all 360degrees without being unbolted from the ground?

I think information like that needs to be looked at for deciding which is better in the Anti-Tank role.

Here is what WWiionlines manual says about the QF17lber, while the game simplifies things i find it kinda humorous.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Bobbybrinks/WWiiO17lb.jpg

Blutarski2004
10-07-2008, 10:13 PM
I don't think it's reasonable to judge the performance of WW2 tank guns on the basis of APCR shot performance. Whether German or Allied, such ammunition was at best available only in limited quantities and was held in reserve for use short ranges against heavily armored opponents. Accuracy of WW2 APCR was poor at longer ranges and its excellent short range AP performance fell off dramatically.

It wasn't until the post-war years that the British solved APCR accuracy problems and shared their findings with the US.

I photocopied an appraisal of the Panther vs the Pershing vs the Tiger I a long time ago [Hunnicutt, maybe?]. Here is the assessment of their respective armaments -

quote -

All three tanks mounted powerful weapons and their their armor piercing performance overlapped somewhat, with the variety of ammunition available. The 90mm gun M3 of the Pershing and the 8.8cm KwK 36 of the Tiger I gave quite similar results when using the same type of APCBC ammunition with a muzzle velocity of approximately 2650 ft/sec. The Panther's 7.5cm KwK 42, with a 400 ft/sec increase in muzzle velocity, obtained greater armor penetration than either of the larger weapons despite its lighter projectile weight. The muzzle velocity of the late production 90mm APCBC ammunition [APC M82] was increased to 2800 ft/sec, but very little was available prior to the end of the war in Europe. The higher muzzle velocity gave the 90 superiority over the Panther's gun at ranges exceeding about 1000 yards, since the velocity did not drop off as rapidly with the heavier projectile. The new 90mm T33 shot, heat treated to a higher hardness level, also showed superiority, particularly at the longer ranges. Introduction of the APCR type lightweight shot with the tungsten carbide core [HVAP T30E16]also increased the performance of the 90. Similar ammunition was developed for the German weapons, but production was halted due to shortages of tungsten. In spite of the great variety of results obtainable with different types of ammunition, the fact remains that the 7.5cm KwK 42 showed superior armor penetration using the standard APCBC projectiles readily available during the latter months of the war. The complete APCBC round for the Panther's gun weighed about 31 pounds compared to 43 and 34 for those of the Pershing and Tiger I respectively. The lighter weight made the ammunition easier to handle in the tank turret, increasing the rate of fire. The larger guns could, of course, fire a higher capacity high explosive shell, but they were less effective as the hole punchers required for tank versus tank action. On this basis the Panther must be rated first in regard to firepower followed by the Pershing and then the Tiger I.

- unquote

In the copied appendices, the following performance figures are given for penetration of homogeneous armor at 1000 yards range and 30 degrees obliquity -

90mm gun M3
APC M82 - MV 2650 ft/sec __________112mm
APC M82 - MV 2800 ft/sec __________122mm
HVAP M304 [T30E16]_________________199mm
AP T33_____________________________117mm

76mm M1A1
APC M62____________________________ 88mm
HVAP M93___________________________135mm
AP M79_____________________________ 92mm


I've patched in the previously quoted performance data for the German guns and the British 17-pounder for easier comparison. Everything is quote on the basis of 1000 yds/1000 meters at 30 degrees obliquity. The only wild card is the precise quality of the armor against which the guns were tested.

88mm/L71
Pzgr39/43 APHE - MV 1000 m/s_________165mm
Pzgr40/43 APCR - MV 1130 m/s_________197mm

88mm/L56
Pzgr39 APHE - MV 773 m/s_____________100mm
Pzgr40 APCR - MV 930 m/s_____________138mm

75mm/L70
Pzgr39 APHE - MV 935 m/s_____________111mm
Pzgr40 APCR - MV 1120 m/s____________149mm

17-pounder
AP ---------- MV 884 m/s_____________110mm
APC---------- MV 884 m/s_____________109mm
APCBC-------- MV 884 m/s_____________131mm
APDS--------- MV 1204 m/s____________192mm

Blutarski2004
10-07-2008, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BobbyBrinks:
I am unsure about the 88mm gun, but my impression is it can be cranked all 360degrees without being unbolted from the ground? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Nice post.

The Flak 18 and Flak 36 had 360 degrees traverse when their cruciform carriage ws properly set up. They could also fire off their wheels but only within a narrow traverse L and R of the longitudinal axis of the carriage.

Traverse of the 88m L71 anti-tanks gun depended upon the type of carriage upon which it was mounted. Some were on a low-profile cruciform carriage; others were on a conventional split trail artillery carriage.

leitmotiv
10-07-2008, 10:47 PM
A no brainer. By any rational measure the German 88/56, 75/70, 88/70, and British 17 pdr were all excellent guns with excellent ammunition. Against medium tanks they were devastating. If I had to fight a Tiger of any flavor, I would want the American 90mm or the Sov 100mm or 122mm. Both the Sovs and the Americans had lousy sights but, with an "elephant gun", you had better morale. P.S. A couple British Fireflies with 17pdrs terminated the greatest tank ace of all time, Whittmann, who was commanding a Tiger I at the time.

Freiwillige
10-07-2008, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A no brainer. By any rational measure the German 88/56, 75/70, 88/70, and British 17 pdr were all excellent guns with excellent ammunition. Against medium tanks they were devastating. If I had to fight a Tiger of any flavor, I would want the American 90mm or the Sov 100mm or 122mm. Both the Sovs and the Americans had lousy sights but, with an "elephant gun", you had better morale. P.S. A couple British Fireflies with 17pdrs terminated the greatest tank ace of all time, Whittmann, who was commanding a Tiger I at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he was hit in the dead rear in an ambush. Credit was originally given to "TYPHOON ROCKET ATTACK" penitrating the rear turret.

M_Gunz
10-07-2008, 11:17 PM
However many Jacksons and Pershings were made before the end of the war, what counts is the
number delivered into the field and used. They didn't have next day shipping for tanks that
I know of! Maybe next month but probably more like 3 months from factory to field.

Of 48,000 Shermans, how many had the 75-L38?

The L is for length and it is the length of the barrel in barrel diameters.

WTE_Galway
10-07-2008, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A no brainer. By any rational measure the German 88/56, 75/70, 88/70, and British 17 pdr were all excellent guns with excellent ammunition. Against medium tanks they were devastating. If I had to fight a Tiger of any flavor, I would want the American 90mm or the Sov 100mm or 122mm. Both the Sovs and the Americans had lousy sights but, with an "elephant gun", you had better morale. P.S. A couple British Fireflies with 17pdrs terminated the greatest tank ace of all time, Whittmann, who was commanding a Tiger I at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well a bit controversial as some researchers favor a rocket attack from Tiffies that were in the area. It seems likely the JABO story may have originated as German propoganda to save face. Although the rear of Wittmans tank definitely was penetrated by something substantial the turrent seems to have blown off in a secondary explosion a few minutes after the initial KO negating claims that only a rocket could have done the type of damage sustained.

The likely truth is a well executed ambush by ONE Northamptonshire Yeomanry Firefly with some normal Shermans in support.

This thread is interesting -

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=137736

Note that at least one of the Tigers in the report in that thread (not Wittman's) was apparently disabled by track damage from a normal Sherman before being KO'd afterwards by the Firefly.

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2008, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A no brainer. By any rational measure the German 88/56, 75/70, 88/70, and British 17 pdr were all excellent guns with excellent ammunition. Against medium tanks they were devastating. If I had to fight a Tiger of any flavor, I would want the American 90mm or the Sov 100mm or 122mm. Both the Sovs and the Americans had lousy sights but, with an "elephant gun", you had better morale. P.S. A couple British Fireflies with 17pdrs terminated the greatest tank ace of all time, Whittmann, who was commanding a Tiger I at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well a bit controversial as some researchers favor a rocket attack from Tiffies that were in the area. It seems likely the JABO story may have originated as German propoganda to save face. Although the rear of Wittmans tank definitely was penetrated by something substantial the turrent seems to have blown off in a secondary explosion a few minutes after the initial KO negating claims that only a rocket could have done the type of damage sustained.

The likely truth is a well executed ambush by ONE Northamptonshire Yeomanry Firefly with some normal Shermans in support.

This thread is interesting -

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=137736

Note that at least one of the Tigers in the report in that thread (not Wittman's) was apparently disabled by track damage from a normal Sherman before being KO'd afterwards by the Firefly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute

Wittmann was more likely killed by a Canadian tanker. They were on the flank with Fireflys and at 500 yards. The penetrations in the tank were from the side they were positioned on.

From Wikipedia:

A Squadron of The Sherbrooke Fusiliers Regiment, 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade, commanded by Major Sidney Radley-Walters, was positioned in the chateau grounds at Gaumesnil. This area, south of Hill 112, is parallel with the Delle de la Roque woods and the location of Joe Ekin's Firefly. The regiment at this time was made up of several Sherman III and 2 Sherman VC, whose tankers had created firing holes in the property's wall. From this position, based on verbal testimony of the Canadian tankers, they engaged several tanks (including Tigers) and self-propelled guns driving up the main road and across the open ground towards Hill 112.[11]

Author Brian Reid, who wrote the book "No Holding Back", on Operation Totalize, the Allied attack during which Wittmann died, puts forth the opinion that, with the range Joe Ekins would have to fire over to hit Wittmann's tank,[35] the proximity of The Sherbrooke Fusiliers Regiment to the tank, no other evidence to suggest anything other than tank-to-tank combat, that the latter are most likely responsible for Wittmann's death.[11] The 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry was positioned over 1000 metres away, while the Canadian tanks were only around 500 metres away.

Kurfurst__
10-08-2008, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Of 48,000 Shermans, how many had the 75-L38? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the numbers I've seen, no long gunned Shermans landed in Normandy (at least initially), and they made up some 25% of the Shermans in ETO by December 1944, and some 50% by VE day.

In other words, the typical US tank platoon after Normandy would be four short barreled Shermans, and a long 76mm one in support. Sometimes TDs were mixed into formations to give them some chance dealing with German armor.

josephs1959
10-08-2008, 08:45 AM
Don't forget a BIG part of Whittman's achievements was in large part due to how he AND his crew operated together. In fact they have been together since 42 in Russia commanding a short gunned sturmgesghutz. So by the time of France in 44 with the tiger they have honed in on being a well oiled machine working in unison.

For example; Whittmann at the turret top whether using the periscopes or out in the open, would gauge the targets and estimate the ranges from 9 o'clock all the way to 3 O'clock or visa versa. And priortize them due to HIS vunerablitity,rather than availablilty. And then call down to his gunner, "Target, 3 o'clock, range 3,000, and even before that target was destroyed he was already calling out the next target and so on and so forth.
The gunner kept this info in his head and did his part by destroying each target and still knowing that he had to turn the turret left or right to destroy the next target.
Also, The driver would help by pivoting the entire tank to aid in the turrets traverse. The fact that the tiger used a hydraulically assissted simple steering wheel instead of pulling levers aided in the speed of traverse of the 56 ton monster. The tiger's turret turning speed was notoriously slow.

Now having a gun that destroyed everything it hit with one shot was a big help of course, But you see how together they managed to survive all that time.

Xiolablu3
10-08-2008, 09:00 AM
Good reading thx all,

The largest help to Wittman in the Normandy campaign was his Tiger armour, which was hit many many times but saved him.

Allied forces up against the Tiger didnt have that luxury.

Had he been in a Tank with equal armour to the Allied Tanks he would have been taken out much earlier.

It helps a lot when the enemies shot bounces off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif No doubt he did soime excellent work before he got his Tiger, however. There is a good prog in the 'Tanks!' series purely on Wittmans career (And also Bobby Dall, his excellent gunner).

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 09:07 AM
He didn't have "all that armor" when he stalked and killed AT guns so well in the East.

Kurfurst__
10-08-2008, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The largest help to Wittman in the Normandy campaign was his Tiger armour, which was hit many many times but saved him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here again I have to refer to my late favourite quote:

'Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos. Technik ohne Taktik ist ziellos.'

or

'Tactics without technology is helpless; technology without tactics is pointless.'

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
10-08-2008, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The largest help to Wittman in the Normandy campaign was his Tiger armour, which was hit many many times but saved him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here again I have to refer to my late favourite quote:

'Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos. Technik ohne Taktik ist ziellos.'

or

'Tactics without technology is helpless; technology without tactics is pointless.'

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Could not agree more.

Xiolablu3
10-08-2008, 04:47 PM
Hehe, nice quote.

I am certainly not suggesting that Wittman was over-rated - He proved himself long before he was given a Tiger to command.

Just saying that he would have been taken out much earlier in the Normandy campaign if he didnt have such an armoured tank, he was hit many times, but was saved by the Tiger armour.

We must not forget Bobby Dall, his gunner, who was equally excellent according to the 'Tank! - Michael Witman' program.

WTE_Galway
10-08-2008, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
He didn't have "all that armor" when he stalked and killed AT guns so well in the East. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Wittman himself always said killing other tanks was a "no brainer" it was taking on the tank destroyers that was dangerous and a real challenge.

leitmotiv
10-08-2008, 05:21 PM
There is a good chapter about Whittmann in Kurowski's PANZER ACES 1. Even when commanding a StuG III with the L/24 75 he was a bold operator. Kurowski's PANZER ACES series is an excellent treatise on German tank tactics. Shows they were an extension of their extremely aggressive infantry tactics which were to maintain the initiative at all times even, if necessary, by attacking with a far smaller force.

http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Aces-Commanders-Stackpole-...id=1223507741&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Aces-Commanders-Stackpole-Military/dp/0811731731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223507741&sr=1-1)

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2008, 06:09 PM
Salute

The facts were, by 1943-44, the advantage had moved from the attacker to the defender.

In 1940 Infantry had very little in the way of effective counters to Panzers, in 1944, they had plentiful AT guns and new man portable weapons.

Tanks were extremely vulnerable when advancing, even the most heavily protected could be hit in the flank by concealed enemy guns, or infantry hidden in built up areas or difficult terrain.

The Germans did very well when on the defence in '43-'44-'45, but when called on to attack, the results were very different. Most often they suffered costly losses and no breakthroughs.

The initial attacks by 12 SS Panzer and Panzer Lehr in the days immediately following the landings in Normandy come to mind, as well as the failed Mortain counterattack. In the Ardennes, they had success in the initial attacks when the odds were 5-1 and they were up against green infantry with few tanks, but once they ran into experienced troops with good equipment, they stalled.

For the Allies, the same applied.

Lines were not broken in single attacks on the West front, usually a breakthrough occurred as a result of a continuous process of attrition and heavy combat, followed by an intense attack by overwhelming force on a considerably weakened opposition, as was the case at St Lo in Normandy. Even then, Gen. Collins VII Corps attack required the assistance of Carpet bombing to really flatten the battlegroup of Panzer Lehr which stood in the way of a breakthrough. And the 1st Armies 2nd and 3rd Armoured Divisions still had 4 days before they had blasted the hole through which Patton's division would eventually pass, and for which he would get all the credit. (even though he didn't do any of the major fighting)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Saint_Lo_and_Vicinity_-_Operation_Cobra.jpg

Xiolablu3
10-08-2008, 06:15 PM
Yeah, good point.

New hollow charge infantry weapons were a big danger to tanks now.

jarink
10-08-2008, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A no brainer. By any rational measure the German 88/56, 75/70, 88/70, and British 17 pdr were all excellent guns with excellent ammunition. Against medium tanks they were devastating. If I had to fight a Tiger of any flavor, I would want the American 90mm or the Sov 100mm or 122mm. Both the Sovs and the Americans had lousy sights but, with an "elephant gun", you had better morale. P.S. A couple British Fireflies with 17pdrs terminated the greatest tank ace of all time, Whittmann, who was commanding a Tiger I at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he was hit in the dead rear in an ambush. Credit was originally given to "TYPHOON ROCKET ATTACK" penitrating the rear turret. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh* Another case of mistaken identity. It was P-47s firing their .50 cals, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tux_UK
10-08-2008, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The largest help to Wittman in the Normandy campaign was his Tiger armour, which was hit many many times but saved him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here again I have to refer to my late favourite quote:

'Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos. Technik ohne Taktik ist ziellos.'

or

'Tactics without technology is helpless; technology without tactics is pointless.'

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I absolutely agree. On the other hand it has always perplexed me how a man who had proven his tactical mastery so many times over the preceding years suddenly decided to break every rule in the "Tankers' Guide To Success And Survival (TM)" by leading a panzer formation completely devoid of infantry support along an exposed approach towards a known enemy strongpoint. Predictably, he, his crew and many following tank crews paid with their lives.

He could just have easily lost his life at Villiers-Bocage, but he got lucky. Added to this, you have to wonder why he decided to attack the unwary British at V-B on his own, when he could have waited a short while and attacked with a full kampfgruppe in order to take proper advantage of the situation.

Wittman strikes me as having exhibited many of the signs of tactical genius, but for a few inexplicable lapses of judgement which played plainly into the hands of his enemies and eventually lead to his being killed by a routine ambush.

I want to repeat, I consider Wittman to have been an excellent tanker, but I think he owes a heck of a lot of his hero status to his particular 'Technik' advantage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for 17 pounder versus 88, I think you'd have to take the KwK 43 if you could carry it. Both have comparable penetration versus vastly superior HE capacity for the 88/L71.

WTE_Galway
10-08-2008, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A no brainer. By any rational measure the German 88/56, 75/70, 88/70, and British 17 pdr were all excellent guns with excellent ammunition. Against medium tanks they were devastating. If I had to fight a Tiger of any flavor, I would want the American 90mm or the Sov 100mm or 122mm. Both the Sovs and the Americans had lousy sights but, with an "elephant gun", you had better morale. P.S. A couple British Fireflies with 17pdrs terminated the greatest tank ace of all time, Whittmann, who was commanding a Tiger I at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he was hit in the dead rear in an ambush. Credit was originally given to "TYPHOON ROCKET ATTACK" penitrating the rear turret. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh* Another case of mistaken identity. It was P-47s firing their .50 cals, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not necessarily even a P47.

It is a well known fact that a single HMG team up a tree can take out Tiger tanks using the same technique. All you need is a bit of elevation to get the famous 0.50 cal bounce to kick in.

M_Gunz
10-08-2008, 07:54 PM
Rubber Bullets (http://www.last.fm/music/10cc/+videos/+1-PJf8Tk6-K7I)

leitmotiv
10-08-2008, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-

The facts were, by 1943-44, the advantage had moved from the attacker to the defender. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depended on the circumstances, as always. At Kursk the Tiger Is, Panther Ds (when they were not driven en masse into minefields or self-destructing), and even Pz IVs with the long 75 dominated the rolling wheat fields which had little to impede long-range fire. The Sov infantry had to rely on anti-tank rifle teams until war's end, but they learned how to use them effectively (you will not easily find photographs of German tank commanders with even their hatches open in Kursk battle photographs). The Sovs knew a Tig I could can-open a T-34-76 at astounding ranges (nearly 3,000 meters) which far exceeded the decisive range of the 76mm. There was that terrible Tiger II ambush of a column of Shermans in 1945 which I cited earlier---the terrain was clear and the Tigers melee-ed the Shermans---a tank charge. In the Goodwood fight in Normandy, at Bourguebus Ridge, Peiper charged the British Shermans with the Panther battalion of 1st SS Pz Div and fought them to a standstill.

Buzzsaw-
10-09-2008, 02:02 AM
Salute

One of Canada's most famous regiments in WWII, was the South Albertas, a tank Regiment, (battalion size unit) which was part of the 4th Canadian Armoured division. They are best known for closing the Falaise gap at St Lambert, an action during which a single company of tanks from the Regt. and a platoon of infantry held off the Germans attempting to break out and took 2500 prisoners, passed on an equal amount to other units after they ran out of holding space and guards, as well as killing probably double that amount, and destroying numerous AFV's including Panthers, etc.

Another action which the Regiment was involved in, which was less glamourous, but illustrates the type of fighting which occurred, was during the reduction of the Reichswald, west of the Rhine, prior to the crossing of the Rhine proper. Hitler had ordered his generals, against their advice, to defend this area, instead of pulling back to the other side of the Rhine. The fighting here was among the bitterest of the war. The following is an excerpt from "SOUTH ALBERTAS, A Canadian Regiment at War" by Donald E Graves.

http://www.ensigngroup.ca/Cover-SAR.JPG

&gt;&gt;&gt;

The Regiment In Action

In late February 1945, as part of the 4th Canadian Armoured Division, the South Alberta Regiment participated in Operation BLOCKBUSTER, the offensive in the Hochwald area immediately west of the Rhine. While two squadrons of the unit supported the main infantry attack, A Squadron under Major Glen Macdougall was tasked with carrying out an independent right hook intended to flank the main German defensive line. Unfortunately, Macdougall and his squadron ran into well-positioned German Tiger tanks and the result was the worst single day's casualties, in men and tanks, the regiment suffered during the war ......

Glen McDougall's A Squadron and the Algonquins' carrier platoon had started out at about 0600 hours and quickly encountered problems with the going. Lieutenant Tiger Bowick's tank bogged and Bobby Crawford took the lead but, in the dark, failed to see one of the large anti-tank ditches which encircled Uedem and slid into it. Crawford then took over Corporal Rizzy Risdale's tank but the advance was halted until a way was found around the maze of ditches and trenches surrounding Uedem. It was nearly 0900 and broad daylight when McDougall's force began to skirt the town and move south to reach the railway where they would begin their attack. The entire area was a maze of farm lanes, trenches and ditches and the column reached the railway several hundred yards west of and closer to Uedem than their intended crossing point. This would not have been a problem if Uedem had been completely secured by 3rd Division but it quickly became apparent that determined pockets of Germans were holding out in that battered town. Due to earlier problems with the mud the combined force was now down to ten tanks and four carriers. McDougall left two Shermans, commanded by Sergeant Duke Sands and Corporal John Galipeau, to guard his rear and pushed on for the railway with his eight remaining vehicles and the carriers. Crawford had the lead, Glen was the fourth tank in the column with his rear link, Kenny Perrin, immediately behind him, and Corporal Joe McGivern was the tail end. As the small column wove its way past the burning ruins of Uedem, Glen looked back in his turret to see "a panzerfaust grenade lobbing in from basement of a house." It missed and McDougall ordered the last two tanks in the column to "put some HE on the house" and there was no more response from the Germans

By now, the head of the column had crossed the railway embankment [but] there were German anti-tank guns south of Uedem and a number of dug-in Tiger tanks. Ed Thorn, the gunner in Crawford's lead tank, saw this Tiger tank straight ahead about five or six hundred yards. I hollered at the guys "Tiger ahead!" and I had an HE round up the spout so I just triggered it off and hollered at Maxie Gilbert, the loader, "APs, Maxie!" I zeroed in on this Tiger and I hit him where I was told to hit him, right where the turret joins the hull and the round ricocheted off to the right. I lowered my sights and hit him again and I got him bang on. Just as I fired, there was a "wheeesh" overhead. Over to the right about half a mile they had dug these Tigers in and I said to Crawford, "I hope Watkins gets those guys." Herbie had the 17-pdr. and I don't know what happened but the next one caught us.

McDougall heard Crawford report the Tiger and also saw fire coming in "from an anti-tank gun which he immediately engaged." ...... Glen kept firing at the gun and thinks he hit its ammunition because "there was a hell of a burst of flame from one of my shots."

But the Germans now had the range and within a matter of minutes had knocked out the first three Shermans in the column. Ed Thorn's tank was hit "right in front of me because I had the power traverse in my hand and I looked down and it was like someone hit me on the shoulder with a sledge hammer." The tank caught fire but, as Ed recalls, "I am not so we caught fire on the first shell or the second shell. I think maybe we got hit twice." The turret crew bailed out but the turret traverse was jammed and the turret continued to swing crazily around in a complete circle, hampering the efforts of the two drivers, Troopers Albert Boyer and Hammy Hamilton, to exit the furiously burning vehicle through their hatches. They cooly waited until the gun had gone by, jumped out and about twenty feet away when the Sherman blew up. Boyer dived into a ditch for cover only to discover it was full of human excrement, forcing him to quickly tear of his tank suit.

The tail-end tank, commanded by Corporal Joe McGivern, and the one in front, commanded by Corporal Herbie Watkins, were also hit. Trooper Art Baker, the driver in McGivern's tank, "was out cold" but McGivern went around to the front and pulled Art out before waking him up. The turret crew in Herbie Watkins's tank got clear ...... [but] the driver, Trooper Harvey Amey, remained in the burning tank so Herbie "ran around to the front of the tank, got up and lifted Amey's hatch and then dropped it." Amey, a married 34-year-old factory foreman from London, Ontario, who had joined the Regiment the previous October, was quite dead.

With the tanks at both the head and tail of the column knocked out, the ones in the middle were trapped. Kenny Perrin tried to extricate his tank and bring it alongside Glen McDougall but it was hit in the turret ring by an AP shot that cut through the gunner's leg and killed the loader-operator, Sergeant Harold "Jake" Jacobsen. Perrin and the gunner, Trooper John Bell, exited through the turret hatch but Kenny apparently returned to the tank to see if he could help Jacobsen. Bell's leg was hanging by a thread of muscle and skin and Glen, seeing him emerge, grabbed his morphine syrettes and jumped down from his turret to help. Bell recalled that "I crawled back through a hedge but my leg got caught in the hedge and I turned around and brought it through." By the time McDougall caught up with him, Bell's leg had dropped off but Glen was amazed that "there was no blood" because "the shot seared the stump." He gave Bell an injection and offered him another one but Bell said, "No, I just want to get out." A big Algonquin Regiment sergeant heaved him onto a carrier and Glen watched it drive away with Bell "waving one leg in the air and hoping for better things."

&lt;&lt;&lt;

The attack continued, and eventually the Germans were destroyed.

SeaFireLIV
10-09-2008, 12:18 PM
Thanks for that. Very interesting read. A tanker`s life was not fun.

Xiolablu3
10-09-2008, 01:24 PM
This is nasty film , but shows the horrors of real tank to tank combat.

Sherman vs Panther vs Pershing


A Panther ambushes and knocks out a Sherman in Cologne 1945, the shot severing the commanders leg and he bleeds to death by his tank.

The Allies send in a Pershing which takes out the Panther in the film shot below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ZDBinC0XI&feature=related

Watch the first 'hit' carefully. The 90mm gun of the Pershing seemingly has no trouble penetrating the panther. Brutal. All of the crew were gunned down apparantly. The guy who runs off is found dead in an alley afterwards.

SeaFireLIV
10-09-2008, 04:47 PM
Not only brutal but horrific. I know those guys would do the same to us and it`s either us or them, but the taking of human life (for whatever reason) is still an awful thing. I`m sure the guy trying to get out the turret can be seen still moving in the flames later.

War is hell.

Aaron_GT
10-09-2008, 05:41 PM
I've been inside a few WW2 tanks and AFVs, and frankly even stationary and not with a whole crew and all the equipment and ammunition gave me the willies as they are so cramped. In a Hetzer if you'd had a particularly good meal you'd have trouble squeezing into it.

Xiolablu3
10-10-2008, 08:08 AM
Intersting how you can see the AP holes in the Panther after each shot thanks to the flames inside.

It really does just punch a hole straight through.

M_Gunz
10-10-2008, 09:04 AM
More complete of the same event. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqH_WEqNK5Y&NR=1)

SeaFireLIV
10-10-2008, 11:19 AM
Thanks, M_Gunz. Interesting to see the guy feel almost the same way about the enemy `They were still Humans...`