Curator Q&A #18: Rocket Attacks on Panthers | The Tank Museum
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2024
- In his latest Q&A, Curator David Willey talks Japanese Type 74s, WW2 close air support, German captured Churchills, attacking tanks with a pistol, interesting finds when restoring The Tank Museum's vehicles, beer during wartime, misfire procedures and much, much more! tankmuseumshop.org/collection...
Chapters:
2:01 - Japanese Type 74 withdrawing from service.
2:57 - WW2 close air support
12:48 - Were there any tanks the Germans were impressed with?
14:46 - Attacking tanks with a pistol
19:03 - Did the Americans call the Sherman, the Sherman?
21:03 - Interesting finds when restoring The Tank Museum's vehicles.
23:13 - Commissioning through the ranks.
24:14 - Beer during wartime
28:59 - Ergonomics of the Sherman Firefly
32:40 - Misfires
33:32 - leopard A2A5 shot traps
35:11 The Tank Museum's Churchill Gun Carrier
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum TH-cam channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP & become a Friend: ►tankmuseumshop.org/
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Instagram: ► / tankmuseum
The Tank Museum E-Newsletter sign-up: mailchi.mp/e6fae2ac8bee/newsl...
#tankmuseum #tanks
I can't think of another curator who has a 4 legged family member who is so popular that they have their own line of merchandise!
David is brilliant. What an asset to the Museum.
What a asset to us all, as are you 😉
Finn trained David so well that he doesn't stop talking while throwing the ball. Great finn. tks David, superb communicator.
I’ve just finished constructing the COBI Tiger131 tank and would never have imagined when I was 7yrs old that I would play with LEGO or something like it nearly 60yrs later. Constructing these is just so relaxing and the end result looks really good - even my partner said she was impressed by this model. The best thing is that it is just like a jigsaw, it can be constructed, admired, dismantled, stored away and then built again.
If every museum had such an enthusiastic, charming and knowledgeable Director then civilization is guaranteed to triumph over ignorant anarchy. People died to protect this tradition.
That story of capturing two tanks with a revolver was quintessentially British
There's another story about attacking tanks with a revolver, which was about Commander (Rear Admiral) Walter Cowan. He was in North Africa during a battle in which he was seen attacking Italian tanks with his revolver. He didn't capture any though, he was captured himself. He was 73 at the time.
Cowan was one of the great 'characters' of the British military. Originally seeing action as a gunboat commander (along with Beatty) in Kitchener's Sudan campaign.
Please continue these chat’s , even when things come back to normal. Very informative👍
Continue these talks regardless, things may never go back to normal unless people wake up.
You, The Tank Museum in Bovington and you my fine Sir were responsible for me to start studying on tanks and history so while ago. I truly hope one day, one day... I can go into a flight, from Brasil to there, shake your hand, not being afraid of anything (no more) and thank you for sharing your tremendous lessons. Thank You.
Can we get a gofundme to buy David a nice big rocking chair, footrest and a pipe for these videos? And maybe a proper table for the paraphernalia?
I fancy a tasseled lamp next to a Lazy Boy recliner..😊
No pipes. We want a healthy curator
@@Masada1911 Maybe one of those pipes that blows bubbles?
Oddball_E8 smashing idea! Id back that
How about a chaise longe in camo fabric?
Mr. Willey, yours and the Museum Director's videos have been greatly enjoyable. When, someday, God willing, I am able to visit England again, the Tank Museum is at the top of my list.
Love the hat David!
Thanks so much for brightening us up in these recent times! Best wishes to the Tank Museum!
Buy that man a hot coffee! Series is so well done! Thank you.
G'day David. Well timed for all us Aussies
G’day Mate!
Yeah it's just after midnight now & I'm getting ready for my 2am work start. Joy to the world.😂
@@scottyfox6376 I have the phone yell at me at 0430 if it's any comfort.
Was at the museum on the 6th August with my son's, new Ww2 exhibit looks great , and got a wave from mr Willey , thanks David , our 12th visit .
Best curator on the internet! Keep up the great work!
That is a dashing hat Sir!
Wings on my Sleeve is an excellent book. He had an incredible life.
Wings on my sleeve is a brilliant book, I worry about people who’ve missed out by not reading it
Regarding things found during tank restoration, the Channel 4 programme "Salvage Squad" covered the restoration of a Centurion ARV which had served in Suez, and in one of the internal stowage boxes the team found a personal letter belonging to a crew member which they were able to return to him.
Correction - it was a Centurion AVRE, not an ARV.
@@CharlesStearman And didn't it last serve in the first Gulf War?
Clap, and we are away on another great show. 😃👍
Went down on sunday to inspect the new WW2 hall, and I definitely approve. Love how it's all laid out in chronological order from the WW1 hall. Could use a couple more benches, but maybe that was me just trying to walk on concrete in my riding boots.
I was actually at the tank museum today! It was a very good experience, and I think that you've done an excellent job keeping the museum as open as it is under the circumstances.
Lol I get a shout out and its for buying stuff while pissed.
For the record I am still happy for my 50 quid
That brought tears to my eyes, hearing that moving alcohol story.😂
Lockdown has made us all do things we don't regret😂
@@evhu6138 as I said I didn't bankrupt myself. The mortgage is paid and there isn't wife yelling at me. I think I got away with it.
Fifty quid isn't bad, I've banned myself from their website when pissed 🤣
Thank you for answering my question! I love these Q&A’s
Regarding the name "Sherman":
The US Army officially adopted "General Sherman" as a nickname for the M4 in November 1944, along with "General Stuart", "General Chaffee", and a few more armoured vehicles and other weapons. Nicholas Moran found and scanned the relevant document in the archives (posted under " Chieftain's Hatch: What's in a Name?").
Of the names on there, Sherman is one marked as being "in current use by men in the field". That doesn't prove how common or uncommon it was of course, but as far as the US Ordnance Department was concerned at that point, at least some of the guys used the name and/or knew of it.
A nicknames is NOT a name. It is NOT the name used in combat, communications, inventory, etc. It was M4 or medium. But hey, when you can find one document, that trumps ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE. Don't let that sway you.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 how he is talking is referred to as the scientific method. You only like documents that confirm your bias? He pointed out a report is known stating the name was known. You weren't there, so that's as important of evidence as any official document ever is.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 It's a bit confusing, but in effect, it's unofficially official but officially unofficial. The order in question states "The following list of names of standard items has been adopted and will be used in public information releases". It is the source for some names we now associate with vehicles like "Scott" and "Jackson", whilst acknowledging the pre-existence of some names like Bazooka and Sherman as in use with the troops. There are an interesting number of uses in the documentation from the field of the name "Sherman", even though it would be far more common to say "M4" or "Medium". For example, the report of the Devers/Barnes mission to North Africa in late 1942 refers to the tank as "General Sherman."
@@TheChieftainsHatch Hey thanks for the reply, I was the one who asked the original question 3 years ago. I thought you might be interested (if you see this) that US newspapers also pretty regularly use the M designations for tanks in their coverage. And although papers are obviously not the account of troops, they do shed light on the familiarity that regular people had with these designations and may use more colloquial language than official military reports. To continue to use M4, as they do even late into the war, I think speaks to the lasting recognition even among Americans at home of the M4 designation.
While the names "Sherman" and often "General Sherman" do start to appear, they are often written together with M4 or M-4. And by the end of the war, they are perhaps used interchangeably for the tank while other models like the M5 Stuart seem to mostly go by M5. The M26 Pershing's name seems to quickly find a footing, perhaps due to its late war development, after the concept of general-naming takes a strong foothold.
One very interesting June 25th 1944 wire service article on the tanks used at D-Day refers to the Sherman as the "M-4 General Grant". Which, while perhaps late in the war to make this mistake, is maybe an example of this transition from the more familiar M4 designation to the less familiar British nicknames and the mixing those up.
Always learn something new with your videos, thank you for these Q&A sessions David, we appreciate you getting sunburn for us! Always look forward to them popping up in my feed.
Y E S !!!! THANK you SO much for the vid of finn! what a good dog! i love how he is all keyed up to get that ball! thank you, David!
That looks like my hat! Looking forward to Tiger Day this weekend.
Thank you for answering my question , fantastic stuff as always! Also I love the book Troop Leader, funny and informative especially jumping a canal in a Cromwell!
Thanks so much for the great information on my question regarding Close Air Support! I’ll definitely check out that book you recommended as well :) Love seeing these videos every week and I look forward to watching them every Tuesday!! :)
Received the Haynes abrams and panther books in good time, my thanks to all at The Tank Museum.
With the spaced armour the reason the effect is lessened is because it causes the round to begin spinning and its no longer got its momentum centred on the point, think of it like trying to put a pin in a notice board, its easy if the point is dead on but really hard if the pin isnt straight. (If the round is longer than the gap obviously it cant spin). The angling of the spaced armour ensures that the round is deflected to have a different angle than dead on to the real armour behind. The older flat spaced armour is simply there to pre-detonate any explosive penetrators or allow the heat from a thermal effect such as molten stream to dissipate in the air gap.
Your never to old to play with toys! I have the biggest vintage Action Man collection in Scotland and it all started with my 3 childhood figures ;-)
Thank you very much for answering my question, I love these videos!
Thank you for the lovely shots of Finn!
The curator talks are pretty cool for learning just random tank stuff. Really hope to visit the museum next time I'm in Southern England.
I have to say that my gift to my father arrived in the US very quickly! He is extremely pleased and once he’s done reading through the Tiger I Haynes manual we’ll be starting on building our own 😂
40:07 Started to get excited about a Tank Museum boomerang. 40:09 Settled down. It's just socks.
I love a boomerang, you can play with it alone...
Enjoy the heat! Love the hat!
Fabulous Video as always. If these ever stop it would be such a shame.
It’s been so long since I read the story of the tank crew capture I was beginning to think I’d dreamt it. Lovely story.
Love Finn and yourself David, plus the Tank Museum
Count me in as successfully flogged for merch. Picked up half a dozen books, helped save some tanks along the way. Pretty good deal.
David is a true gentleman
This man is so kind, polite and thoughtful and great with his dog. Qualities too rare these days. It must be wonderful to work with or for him. Loved that he said thanks but discouraged drunk buying from the Tank Museum. I tune in for all the great information but its like sitting down in the garden/yard with a pleasan,t knowledgeable friend.
Wicked hat David. Should definitely be an accessory with your action figure.
In regards strafing tanks; I did a lot of research on this for a TV series a couple of years back in regards bouncing shots off a road surface to hit the underside of a tank and knocking it out.
I'd also first ran into this idea when reading about an RAF pilot talking about flying a Typhoon, although he was talking about the aircraft's cannons not rockets. But it turns out that USAAF pilots were saying the same thing with their .50 BMG's. I even ran across an official notation from the USAAF in which one P-47 squadron was named as having success particularly by bouncing bullets under tanks.
Looking at the US version, since the show I worked on was in the US, I'm rather skeptical. Since as far as the .50 BMG goes it seems that the armor was a bit thicker than the rounds were capable of penetrating. Then again my job was made a bit harder as no one seems to think to note what thickness the underside armor of WW2 tanks actually was.
My conclusion was that one of three things were happening;
1; Pilots were igniting external fuel tanks and assuming the tank was destroyed. This would seem to be backed up by some gun camera footage I've seen and USAAF pilots interviews indicating they were aiming at fuel tanks being towed by the tanks. Which exploded in a Hollywood style fireball.
2; Some shots may have been getting into the engine compartment through air intakes on the upper deck.
3; German tank crews may have been smart enough to play dead after being shot at. Figuring that they would be left alone by the remaining aircraft which might be carrying bombs or rockets which could actually hurt them.
From a couple of reference books sitting next to me:
Belly plate on a Tiger 1 was 26mm thick, and you’d have to be underneath it to hit it. The nose plate that joined the front plate to the belly plate was 62mm.
As originally designed the Stug III had a 16mm belly plate and a 50mm nose plate. Later Stug variants did get additional armour, but the belly plate was still not very thick.
Given the typical ground clearance of a WW2 tank you’d have to be an amazing shot to bounce rounds under one that impacted the belly while flying at very low altitude indeed, avoiding terrain, possibly get shot at and at a closing rate of over 100 miles per hour. The time window to pull off the required trick shooting would have been tiny and the accuracy required super-human.
Engine decks were probably vulnerable to 20mm armour piercing auto-cannon hits on pretty much any tank. But I’m inclined to file the tales of deliberately bouncing fire into tank belly plates in the “urban myth” category. Maybe there were times this happened but I’d put it down to chance rather than a thought-out tactic.
You are of course quite correct on this. However,many years ago,I read a book called God is My Copilot. Written about serving against the Japanese early in the war there,the circumstances and targets were very different. The author mentions sinking vessels by aiming his machine guns at the waterline,and opening the thing up like a can opener. Point to this being,individual strikes are one thing,multiple strikes in an area are something else. Not just to armour, but suspension arms,springs,shock absorbers,etc. Cumulative damage to a belly plate at least has a potential to cause harm. How often that happened is at best debatable unless verified very shortly after the event.
Being strafed with no effective way to fire back,hearing multiple hits all over the hull ,that cannot have been easy to tolerate.
The other side of the coin is that casualty rates in the ground attack squadrons were very high. The Germans could and did shoot back and their cumulative ability to take out a pilot flying multiple missions meant fairly inexperienced pilots doing their best but not really able to evaluate results dispassionately. Given the adrenaline both sides had pumping in their bloodstream, the word dispassionate is massively inaccurate.
Aiming at the front of a tank while the crew hunker down and hope for the best is if nothing else going to spoil the crews ability to aim accurately at anything at all for perhaps as much as an hour. Shaking hands get in the way of precise coordination.
Some notes on my research;
All the reports I've run across seem to date between June 1944 and December 44 or January 45.
I was basing the effectiveness of attacks against the Panzer IV, as this would be the most numerous tank as well as frequently misidentified as a 'Tiger'. Almost every record I could find where a target tank is identified say 'Tiger', which is statistically unlikely.
Without being able to pull up specific figures regarding the underside armor I assumed it was equal to the upper deck armor. (The figures from Tl W seem to indicate this was the case. As the belly plate armor value seems to be consistent with what I recall the upper deck armor on those vehicles as being.)
Based on gun camera footage I estimated most strafing runs were carried out from about 200 yards at 300-350 mph at treetop height or less. (There were a couple of runs in the Netherlands where fighters were firing from below the raised road surfaces the targets were traveling on.) That would probably mean a 30 degree of less angle.
The AP capabilities of the 0.50 BMG rounds used by the P-47 would be between 12.5-23mm depending in ammunition. rate of fire would be approximately 60 rounds per second for a P-47.
Based on the angle, AP capabilities of the .50 BMG rounds and the thickness of the armor. It seems unlikely that any rounds would be capable of penetrating the upper deck armor during strafing runs in 1944. The chances of a round that first hit the ground and then would have hit the underside armor at an even shallower angle managing to get through the armor seems highly unlikely to say the least.
Aside; It appears that British pilots considered rockets to be the most effective anti-tank munition. The US pilots however seem to have preferred bombs.
@dwiggins01 Off the top of my head the upper deck armor on a Panzer IV was around 15mm*. That would mean that at 25-30 degree attack angle the effective armor thickness would be 30-35.5mm. That would be far outside the capabilities of a .50 ball round to go through even with the added velocity from the aircraft. The API rounds would have an AP figure of around 22.4-24mm (since 22.4 was the minimum value in order to classify as AP). In fact the only 0.50 BMG round I can find with AP figures which would allow penetration would be the DU rounds, which were clearly not available in 1944/45.
*I can't recall the specific figure, but do recall the armor being increased throughout the war from some 7mm to around 15mm. Keep in mind its been a few years since I researched this and the information I pulled up was on an old PC.
@AKUJIRULE Have you ever been so frightened your knees are shaking ? Having major adrenaline, fight or flight response severely affecting your coordination ? No I have never even been inside a tank. Regardless,I stand by what I wrote. If you honestly thought you might die,get through that and force yourself to function,you can. But fine coordination goes straight out the window. Sitting in a tank seat forcing yourself to go through whatever steps are required to shoot at soldiers or other targets,having been inside a hull that has just received multiple strikes,is going to degrade accuracy. At the very least.
Refering to the RP trial you discussed, each Typhoon carried x8 RPs typically fired in a spread salvo. Therefore the 64 RPs were fired from eight aircraft. Thus the three hits obtained really represents a 37.5% hit rate from each attack (albeit under ideal conditions). That's not too bad tbh for unguided rockets fired from 2,000-3,000ft up. (Edit - sorry to the chap who made this same point 5mins earlier).
Confirmed combat kills indicate a hit rate vastly lower than that - see my reply to the other post about this.
Hey David n Finn,
Just a quick thanks, have purchased quite a few 1:35 British WW2 Tanks from the shop. Can't believe you stock the Bronco A34 Comet 😍. I haven't been able to find a UK stockist for ages... Purchased and donated..
Thanks again.... Phil
Excellent. What a Gent.
A great channel and cause
Just as a note to this, many years ago in my job I got to talk to a guy who was in the radio tank of his unit while pushing out from the D Day beaches. He explained how each unit had one Sherman Firefly to take out any Panthers. Unfortunately progress was slowing due to the undergrowth and hedges and they were getting pinned down by German units too. In his words "we would call up the RAF with the co ordinates of the enemy and then wait. For the first week the planes would appear in the distance and do one orbit to get their bearings and then dive to attack. He described them as Typhoons with rockets. He added by the second week that now on the initial circuit the German hatches would open and the crews scarper as they knew what was coming. In his words he said they never missed and was greatly thankful for how accurate the attacks were."
Just watched you last night on an episode of Inside the Factory about tea and brewing inside the British tank. Best wishes from Northern Ireland.
Some of the German logistical tail was Horse drawn. I shudder to think what Air power would do to that. Really enjoyed the clip.
Most of the German Military was horse drawn, far more than any other army. So many resources were used by weapon production that trucks and railway cars were in short supply. Infantry units had a cart with food, tents and ammunition that they took to near the front. The movie Fury has a scene where they talk about having to shoot the horses that the Germans left behind after rushing troops to Normandy.
@@nicbrownable Missed that scene, was probably making a Brew or asleep.
Let's just say that it was not pleasant for the horses and very messy and smelling afterwards.
Would love to know if there were Brits who avoided attacking horses. You would not drop a bomb on Bovvy if you thought Finn was there.
Be there Tuesday with my boy, annoying that I have to wear a mask but hey ho still going to be fun , thanks for these Q&A updates they've been brilliant and have probably made the experience more personal so keep them up 👍
Very interesting fact about the limited effect of CAS from WW2 ground attack airplane. Didn't know a lot about that.
David Question for video #19 - You mentioned the Museum would like to get a Japanese type 74 tank. Could you ask the Indian Government if they could donate to the museum a Vijayanta Vickers Main Battle Tank Mk.1. These have an important part in the story of British tank development. There is no example in the UK. Many of them are going to be sold for scrap metal but some are being given to local Indian communities as memorials.
Nice hat. Also glad to see you wearing a hat. The sun gets a bit harsh in summertime.
Excellent intro as always David. Enjoying the clap. But not the “clap” lol. A very nice hat btw!
Brilliant hat!
i forgot to buy an inflatable 88mm tiger shell last time i was in the shop and this time i checked and theyre sold out! hopefully you'll get some more soon cuz id love the set
Hi,
Thank you for doing this Q&A for us it is very informative.
Also found this been very funny from time to time.
Also found this been very funny from time to time.
Please add below questions to your show.
1 Why Sherman Firefly is named Firefly?
2 How did British troops, commandos, go along with willy jeep been left hand driven vehicle?
3 How many tanks in general actually survived war. (for example if there were 50K of shemans how many got back to USA, )
4 Do tank crews have main gun loaded at all times to speed up first shot. Was this a practise in WWII ,what about more modern times Iraque?
5 How efficient was food supply chain in WWII, does soldiers often had to hunt for their food to survive?
Very interesting to learn about the limited success rate of the rocket equipped Typhoons against German armour. How did the JU87 Stukas compare with their dive bombing attacks? Was it again more of a psychological weapon causing Allied crews to abandon their tanks or were they more effective in actually disabling a vehicle?
I remember reading somewhere that alcohol was being delivered to the troops in Normandy using spitfires and their bomb racks.
Can confirm your recollection. I have several books on the Spitfire and there is always a photo showing a Spit with a large beer barrel under each wing for delivery to the front line troops in Normandy. I hate to think about what those barrels did to the flight characteristics of the Spitfire.
It's been great viewing..and a fine dog as well..
As far as the wegde armor on Leopard 2A5s go, its 2 things.
Against APFSDS rounds, the extreme impact angle on the wedge is supposed to destabilize the round on the way though, as the wedge is basically hollow and underneath is the same vertical slabs as a 2A4, and the round will probably not penetrate that. In a sense the same way as Panzer IV skirts would work against PRTDs.
Against HEAT rounds it would have the normal standoff effect due to the air gap.
Question:
were there any WW2 attempts at Leopard 2A5 like spaced armor, and what was the idea behind them (for example schurzen on Panzer IV, or why panther didn't get spaced schurzen).
Info:
Leopard 2A5,6 & 7 front turret armor is indeed spaced. The idea behind it is that any Sabot round (modern armour piercing anti tank rounds, they look like oversized nails) tumbles when it goes through the armor and then hits the actual turret armor (the same armor as on the 2A4) on such a way that the sabot round shatters on impact and the penetrating force gets spread out (= less penetration per surface area, same reason why tank tracks prevent a tank from sinking in the mud).
To make it work the spaced armor on the Leopard 2A5/6/7 needs to be spaced enough to let the entire projectile through, which it might only just do near the top and bottom, otherwise the projectile will not be tumbled (the back end of the projectile will be stabilized by being confined in the spaced armor, preventing tumbling). My guess to source of the tumbling effect would be the friction of the spaced armor combined with it's angle having marginal direction changing effects.
The tumbling of the projectile will likely cause it to shatter, since the high speeds combined with an impact force not aligned with the length of the shall causes a bending or direction changing force. See it like this, take a stick from a tree and poke it against the wall, the stick will bend. However if you take that same stick and try to hit a will with it as if it's a baseball bat, then the stick will likely break.
Well David maybe when there is that heat do untie !!?! Much more relaxing (and my guess is that misses Willey does like you be relaxed !)
Why does Firefly have such a legend surrounding it? Because it was available on DDay and the Normandy breakout. The 76mm Sherman might well have been a more effective fighting machine, but it was parked back in the UK for June and July of 1944. Thus, for big cat killing - Firefly was available and the legend was born.
love the hat david.
20 past 9 and it's already baking. At 10 AM here in South Texas is was already 96 F. However, when I saw you wearing a hat I thought, "Heat wave in England." and I was right.
Have seen some film of rocket attack by those WWII rockets, and heard that a full salvo from a P-47 that could carry 10 of them was equivalent to a broadside from a cruiser, wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that, even in a tank. Basically, people who say that tactical air power was overstated and less effective really have to focus on a few things and ignore the huge logistic issues the tactical air forces created. Tanks need fuel, hauling fuel means railroads, and locomotive busting was almost a sport by 1944...
What joy, I have another reason to despise Lloyd George.
What do you think about the challenger 2 LEP 130mm by rhienmetall/BAE systems. How many years do you think it will be until that will be in service or if ever.
Thanks.
last thought for a panther crewman as a 17-pounder shell goes through the front of his tank and kills him "well at least the ergonomics of the firefly suck".
Major Digby Tatham-Warter may not have attacked a tank with a pistol but he did attack an armoured car with an umbrella poking it into the drivers eye through the vision slit.
That's about what I've always suspected. The odds of a hit on any particular tank were slight but anything the rockets did hit was dead. I understood that from playing with bottle rockets. Rockets with no guidance other than fins will go where they want to.
Finn will miss these chats more than us if David stops doing them at some point.
Bought a 17 pounder shell. Thanks DW.
Correct me if I am wrong. IPA dates back to the days of the Raj. Massively hopped and undrinkable in the UK. Up to six months sailing round the Cape in a wooden cask with heat and humidity caused it to mellow and age. If true then you cannot really get authentic IPA.
Got some books from the tank museum recently, it prompted me to think : when was the last time a canister round was issued to tank forces? I know of cases of 37mm used as giant shotguns in jungle during WWII and heard something of Korea. How about modern times?
Canister rounds were used by Australian Centurion tanks in Vietnam as they were particularly effective in quickly clearing away the jungle to expose any bunkers and other fortifications. Once exposed, the tank then loaded HE round and removed said bunker and enemy from the face of the earth. Flechett rounds were also used over open sights by Australian Artillery in defense of their gun positions at Firebases Coral and Balmoral.
@@markfryer9880 I heared that too, do you know the shell designation?
Need to buy you a nice director's clapboard, with the Tank Museum logo on it! Like the fedora, by the way...
Just to an add on about the book 'Wings On My Sleeve' I have read it, and it absolutely brilliant, well worth picking up, and capt. Eric 'Winkle' Brown did write a second book called 'Miles M52: Gateway to Supersonic Flight' which is also well worth reading if you are interested in aviation, it goes through the development of the actual first supersonic aircraft by the Miles aviation company in Britain before the government canceled the project and sold a the information and design work to the Americans when the M52 was already built and ready to fly, resulting in the Bell X1. Basically a clone of the M52, it is another very interesting read and really shines a light on the development process for an aircraft and all the work involved in a project like that which was, at the time, absolutely revolutionary, right on the bleeding edge of technology. Thoroughly recommend it!
A question that comes up for me is what is done in WW2 with the tanks that are sorted out as outdated, e.g. the German Panzer I between the Polish campaign and the offensive against France.
19:00 naming tanks is a construct of a large discussion of friendly & enemy tank types. Troops would have merely called theirs 'tanks' in comparison to 'halftracks' & 'armored cars' or 'trucks' & 'jeeps' .... 'Pershing' being the possible exception. Sherman was as ubiquitous as Abrams today, so the word 'tank' for troops without the name or M-# is always sufficient.
Nice
Regarding the "shot trap" on the Leopard 2A5, it's not because of several pieces of complex physics that all play off of one another. One is that a modern main gun sabot projectile travels incredibly fast, usually in the neighborhood of a mile a second. Second is the density of the projectile, they are made from tungsten carbide, or depleted uranium (depending on the country in question), the third is the length of the penetrator itself (the base of which extends halfway to nearly the bottom of the shell casing depending on the model and country in question). The fourth, and final one is the diameter of the penetrator, which is between 25 and 35mm (again, which is dependant on the country in question).
All those factors combined means that if the tip of the penetrator hits the intended target, the sheer kinetic energy that is maintained in the aft section of the round keeps propelling the fore end of the round into the armor until it runs out of its energy.
Hope I can visit the museum at some point.
Whoa there hang on 😁 64 rockets were fired and each Typhoon carried eight rockets which were fired in salvos (not individually). Therefore 8 Typhoon rocket attacks scored 3 direct hits between them. That's actually a very decent hit ratio. Certainly not as unlikely as was being made out.
If 3 direct hits were made by 8 Typhoons then that's a 37% chance of a potentially catastrophic direct hit from every incoming aircraft attack. Suddenly bailing out makes a lot of sense!
Many years ago I worked with someone who had been an RAF armourer, and he told me that the 3inch rockets had never been fully effective because the a high percentage of the warheads didn't explode. (perhaps being sensitive to the angle of strike ?)
He also mentioned that instead of explosive warheads, a number were made with solid concrete warheads as a 60lb lump of concrete arriving at something approaching the speed of sound was almost as effective, especially against soft targets and shipping, but was considerably cheaper !
The British survey teams which wandered round battlefields after the fighting working out what had been destroyed by what found that the kill rate from air attacks on armour was rather lower than claimed by any air force - and way, way under one kill for every 37% of full rocket salvos fired. And as usual with such things as kill claims the side on the receiving end always considered their losses to be lower than the other side claimed.
For example, Mortain, 7-10th August. 294 ground attack missions flown on the 7th alone. Combined UK and US tank claimed definite kills = 77.
Survey result: killed tanks = 9. Tanks not killed but abandoned by crews = 11. And if there was doubt about what caused a kill the aircraft were given the benefit of the doubt.
The most effective anti-tank attack aircraft were on the Eastern Front, where the Germans and Soviets had very effective specialist ground attack aircraft (the HS129 and IL-2 Sturmovik), rather than pressing aircraft designed to be fighters into the ground attack role and fitting them with rockets or bombs.
Lighter armoured vehicles, soft-skins and anything unarmoured which provided a worthwhile target was certainly very vulnerable to fighter-bomber attack. The effect on German troop’s morale of seemingly endless quantities of Typhoons, Tempests and P-47s coming to attack them while the Luftwaffe seemed powerless to intervene must have been enormous. Being continuously harassed if moving in the open during daylight also probably had an effect well beyond the number of tanks destroyed. A tank that sits under cover because the crew are frightened of being under air attack when really the tank was needed somewhere else is a tank that has had its effectiveness massively reduced.
@@Kevin-mx1vi Rockets were also fitted with solid steel armour-piercing warheads which were used against ships as an explosive warhead risked damaging the attacking aircraft - the AP rockets would start fires and hole the ship below the waterline.
@@tlw4237 I think it's also worth remembering that the allies on the western front ran a "cab rank" system, with flights of ground attack aircraft circling and waiting to be called upon to attack points of resistance.
Knowing that putting up a fight was likely to get you suddenly bombarded by some hefty weaponry before you had a chance to relocate must have been very worrying for german ground forces.
@@Kevin-mx1vi Hence the late war changes to German camouflage, to make hidden AFVs less obvious from the air. Even if the aircraft never hit you, as you say it would hardly increase your enthusiasm for taking risks.
And if you’re spotted by aircraft, have they passed on your location to ground troops who have weaponry that’s a serious threat to your survival?
For troops without the benefit of an armoured vehicle to sit in the experience of being suddenly pounced on by a flight of P-47s would not have been very enjoyable. Even heavy tank crews seem to have reacted to air attack much like the soldiers of 1936-41 did to Stuka attacks -
And if the fighter-bombers could spot you so could the artillery spotting planes, anti-tank gun crews might notice where the aircraft are attacking and start paying your location close attention...
The Western Allies obviously achieved some results from their ground attack strategy or they wouldn’t have done it. I suspect in one way the kill rate wasn’t the decisive factor. As, I think Napoleon put it, the effect of causing your enemy’s morale to collapse is a much more effective way to win than only causing your enemy physical damage. The heavy bombing of urban targets kind of demonstrates that - Tokyo took far more damage and casualties from B-29 raids than the two atomic weapons caused but it was the level of instant destruction and the thought it could be repeated ad infinitum at any time that caused the Japanese morale collapse that ended the war, not the conventional bombing campaign. Which may well have achieved the same result but probably have taken much longer to get there.
M4 calling Sherman. It is recommendation by ordnance branch.
"Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015" around 7th minute. The chieftain got scanned document.
The 60lb rockets were not target specific anti tank weapons. They were an area weapon with a spread with a ship size target being the measure. The 40mm S Guns were anti tank specific and were very much more accurate and this was used extensively and successfully in Burma by Hurricanes throughout the campaign, but using the HE shell and not anti tank armour penetrators. Picking out soft skin targets accurately.
Hypothetical question for next time...
Had the Vickers 6ton full entered service with the British army, would it have made any significant difference in France or North Africa?
Some Americans - particularly those from the old Confederacy may not have liked using the term Sherman considering what his forces did to the Old South.
You're ok but we love Finn. :)
We always talk about Sherman tanks being easier to repair, but with all the various models how much overlap of parts could you use.. Could you in a pinch switch some of the larger componants such as engines, transmissions, tracks and turrets?
This is both great & exceedingly British
Haha, took out two tanks with nothing but a revolver and his wits. Love it.
How effective were early anti tank measures?
Firefly developer: we've managed to cram in the bigger gun, but it's eliminated a crew seat, it mashes the radio when you fire, and it has a good chance of burning the cupola crew's eyebrows off.
US tank crews: NOICE!
THE most important question. Will Finn be making a public appearance at the next public Tankfest? The public must know about such a high-attraction!
more finn, what a great dog