HOME | DD
TChenArt β Furious
#furious #jagdpanther #tank #worldwar2 #worldoftanks #tankdestroyer #inktober2017
Published: 2017-12-31 07:43:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 1335; Favourites: 70; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Inktober 21 "Furious"Nothing more annoying than to have your tank immobilised, especially in a turret-less tank.
Fun fact: Anti-tank mines are responsible for the most tank "kills" during WW2.
Related content
Comments: 23
jagdpanther, one of the cleanest tank designs ever...
π: 0 β©: 1
i still prefer the Tiger II, mostly because it has a turret
π: 0 β©: 1
lollllllllll, well that's one advantage. Still, the jagdpanther has a much more ballistically effective design (it's angled) and it was easier to make. Nonetheless, comparing the two is apples to oranges, and i like the tiger II better, mainly because of it's godlike combat record.
π: 0 β©: 1
i'd still prefer the flexibility that a turret affords
π: 0 β©: 0
At the old Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland there sits one of the most perfect Tiger II tank ever recovered.
It was not captured by running out of fuel or break down.
It was taken out in battle. A clean shot from single Sherman tank took it out.
The round struck the collar surrounding the barrel on the turret.
The dent kept the 88mm gun from recoiling. There was exposed the weakness. There was no way to manually drop the breech to reload inside the turret.
π: 0 β©: 1
seems to be similar to the case of Tiger 131
π: 0 β©: 1
Pretty much. I was off on its location. I remember it at Aberdeen when I was stationed there for training back in 1972. Corrected location of her along with all the other displays were moved to Fort Lee in Virginia.
I lost a track like that on an M60 I was driving on a test in Alaska in 1974. We were testing new air dropped mines.
These were supposed to only be 20 pound dual purpose test mines. No charges just fuses but something happened when I ran over it. The explosion lifted me out of the driver seat knocking me unconscious.
It was determined the mine had landed on an unexploded 105 HE round. A perfect position. The tank weight and mine pop must have set it off.
Broke the track and damaged the two front road wheels. What was really a thrill is after I regained my senses I was in charge of fixing it.
I kept thinking......are there other unexpected surprises laying about??
π: 0 β©: 1
you drove tanks? coolio!
so, that test mine that your tank ran over just so happen to be sitting atop a 105 HE shell (i'm assuming the test drive area was also a firing range)
that must have been some crazy (bad) luck
did it help that you guys didn't directly run over the 105 HE shell (could the tank have survived AND protected the crew)?
π: 0 β©: 1
Hitting with the track is the usual way mines are detonated. This helped our survival as the blast was to the side not directly under us. Its the concussion that does the damage to crews inside. We had the hatches open which is why I was knocked about and not more seriously hurt.
Had the blast gone off underneath the hull we would have been directly in the concussion. There would have been more serious injuries. I had my left eye reddened up and hearing loss for a few days. Concussion damage.
Yes the testing range was littered with lost ordinance. Most of time we spotted them first then did our bomb disposal imitation. Set some C4 on it. Lite the fuse and retreat to a safe distance for a big boom.
Occasionally we would have the misfortune of running over them.
Supposedly this part of the range was clear of unexploded ordinance.....good old Army intel!
I drove anything the Army had.
M113, M110 howitzer, M60, M551 Sheridan, my main drive was the M88 Recovery.
US Army Arctic Test Center at Fort Greeley Alaska.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've seen some videos of M1 Abrams in Iraq purposefully running over IEDs and VBIEDs in Iraq. Wonder how the crew would've fared, though they should be fine since the M1 is a tough nut. But also depends on how much those IEDs were packing.
Any preference on which tank you drove?
π: 0 β©: 1
The modern tank is so much of a leap forward in crew safety. Stories I have heard from M1 crews is they heard a muffled boom and felt the tank shake but not much else. Now the track and wheels took a beating.
My fav driver was M88. It was just a recovery tank but the mechanical stats on it just slammed others
1790 cubic inches Continental V12 air cooled twin supercharged gasoline engine. Over 1400 horsepower. Weight 56 tons. It had a 3 1/2 inch front winch cable which had a 90 ton capacity. A boom which when raised had a 25 ton capability. All of it controlled by the driver.
When in operation we used gallons per mile not miles per gallon. We carried 850 gallons.
Its duty was battlefield recovery of anything we could get to. It could tow 3 M60s at one time.
The M60 ran a close second as it had that big gun on it which I did do loading and gunnery on.
The M551 Sheridan was the fastest as it was mostly aluminum. Pitiful weak but huge main gun. The Shillelagh rocket it was designed to use was sort of a joke as it flew so slow you could shoot it out of the air. Was not really fast reloading using conventional ammo as you had to wait for this bank of lights to go green before the gun would operate. Maybe two rounds a minute!
π: 0 β©: 1
"what was that?"
'probably just the breeze'
I guess the M88 is more fuel efficient since it's not wasted on carrying something as trivial as like a turret or a cannon.
so what's the protocol with recovering vehicles in the US Army? when a tank crew has to abandon a tank, and if they manage to get back to friendly lines, after do they notify someone about the condition of the tank and whether it can be recovered do they hitch along to recover the tank?
where I live we still use M60A3s and CM-11 (M48H). Got to see some of them tucked away in several camps.
if im not mistaken, the Sheridan was essentially the last "light tank" the US Army ever used. but with so much of modern conflict being in crowded urban areas and few tank-vs-tank engagements, maybe the US should have some actual light tanks instead of just Strykers.
how was the airdrop/amphibious capability of the Sheridan?
π: 0 β©: 1
First order is for the crew to get safe if still alive. It may mean leaving the tank in the field as is. The M88 was designed to go in under fire (as long as it was safe....no anti tank stuff about.....infantry was no problem as the 88 could take hits from light weapons) and hook up to pull the damaged tank to the rear where the mechanics would go to work fixing it up. If too heavily damaged it was still recovered to deny any scrape metal to said enemy.
If the crew could stay safe they stay in the tank. We tow all of them back. They could help the mechanics.
The Sheridan was a neat tank and could float which we did on occasion testing it. Belly armor was added to better protect the hull. They did try fitting a 105mm short barrel to replace the crummy 152mm but the turret ring could not take the recoil and would crack the aluminum hull. We did airdrop this one which finally did it in. The test cargo parachute failed to deploy. That Sheridan fell 3000 feet landing upside down crushing the turret into the hull when it hit the hard frozen ground. They were more worried about damage to the test parachute π€ͺ
Another cool tank you would like was the M50 Ontos called Thing. Six 109mm recoilless hanging three to each side. Crew of three. Commander, loader who had to reload manually standing outside, and driver whose hatch was only big enough for your head.
I drove that on a few tests. Quick little beast. Ultra light. 7.62 steel tip rounds could penetrate it. We tested the flechette loads nicknamed beehives. Nasty anti personnel rounds.
π: 0 β©: 1
Fascinating!
I suppose it'd be much safer to just airlift a Sheridan (or any tank), or even have it brought in by a heavy-lift helicopter.
The only video game that I can recall that showed tanks being airlifted or airdropped was in the "World in Conflict", where a lighter vehicle Sheridan would be brought in via an MH-53, while anything heavier (like an M60 or M1 Abrams) was usually airdropped by a passing cargo plane. Very cool to see that bird swoop in, spewing chafe as it drops off the package, alongside the crews who would parachute and land around it. The game also had the invaluable M88s repair vehicles which could recover and repair vehicles.
The M50 Ontos was a pretty wonky looking vehicle, x6 recoilless rifles positioned as such. Surely inspired a lot of video game tanks (although usually as anti-air)
Did you guys test the flechette rounds on dummy targets? Must have turned those into swiss cheese I'd imagine.
π: 0 β©: 1
We used 50 wooden cutouts covered with butcher paper. Behind those we had a 100 meter long 8 meters high plywood wall covered with paper.
We used three guns to test the flechette rounds. The. M60 with its 105. A 105 field artillery gun. The Ontos which we took off the 109mm guns and remounted six 75mm. That was a job in itself! Our machinist hand made adapters to fit the 75mm guns on the Ontos 109mm mounts.
We shot from 100 meters to 500 meters testing the spread pattern.
Our shots were done to test effectiveness in sub zero. 30 below or more was the criteria. After each shot we redid the paper. Take them back to base and lay them out to grid count the number of hits per square meter. The soldier cutouts had to be replaced a few times.
That load was later banned as being too horrible and inhumane.
π: 0 β©: 1
why ever would they ban flechette rounds?
because maybe the damage they would inflict, if it doesn't outright kill someone may be too gruesome and painfully fatal?
or because the cone ballistics of the flechette rounds could make it indiscriminate, especially if say some of the needles bounce off a surface and hit someone unintentionally
I recall reading about how in WW1 flechettes used to be dropped from aircraft against troops in the trenches. that wouldn't have been pretty. it's why i never play with staplers, and it was disturbing seeing my classmates running around with those and duel with each other. Thankfully no one lost an eye but despite their assurances that that stapler stuck in their finger didn't hurt too much it was just perverse
π: 0 β©: 1
Geneva Convention has rules for war. Types of bullets for example.
No hollow points. Too damaging.
So that was circumvented using a small high speed bullet which tumbles causing the same damage as a hollow point.
Cluster bombs are banned now.
It was done to make war more civilizedπ€¨
In Nam I heard stories of NVA found nailed to trees after receiving a flechette round their way.
We had a 40mm and a 12ga flechette load.
I know it would defoliate a tree!
π: 0 β©: 1
If i'm not mistaken, a lot of cases where GSWs aren't fatal is if the bullet went clean through and didn't hit anything important, and especially didn't splinter (which would more likely happen if a bullet hits a bone). Fragmentation and the ensuing multiple internal bleeding is the killer.
Cluster bombs aren't banned in the US military, yet. Something about putting that off until they can find a "safer" versions.
I have an inside joke with a friend from the US on how I have a tendency to leave conversational "grenades", but since he's American he leaves cluster bombs.
It's amazing the capacity humankind has for violence.
If you want that tree gone, drop a Daisy Cutter.
π: 0 β©: 1
π
See a Daisy cutter do its job in Nam..
They said they were clearing jungle for a chopper LZ.
Funny thing is we notified some folks about a large group of NVA under that canopy of vegetation just a few hours earlier.
I saw a C130 lumbering over and this huge mass fall out the back. The CO told to prep for the blast.
Cover our ears, open our mouth, face away get prone.
What a blast!!!!
Pure concussion!
All we found were bend AK barrels and shoes.......with the meat still inside.
The rest was vaporized.
Eyup humanity has come a long wayπ€¨
π: 0 β©: 0
whatever puts it out of a fight indefinitelyΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
What "killed" the most tanks in World War 2? - YouTube
π: 0 β©: 0