- This topic has 24 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
. John Salt will know
You think?
. John Salt will know
You think?
I’d bet your house on it 🙂
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
They tended to be issued at one per platoon in those divisions that received them & were often used at the front of the column, on the grounds that they had a far higher chance of surviving the first (& subsequent) shots than their thinner skinned brethren.
Full records of exactly how the Jumbos were issued are difficult to identify as the tank were often only recorded as ‘Medium Tank M4A3’ with no distinction between a standard M4A3 and an M4A3E2. But partial records have been traced although some do seem to conflict. The first thirty six tanks were issued to the US First Army on the 14th October and were then issued to individual tank battalions. Fifteen to the 743rd, fifteen to the 745th and six to the 746th. On the 18th October, Normandy beach depots recorded having seventeen on hand, twenty four released to Armies and nineteen on route to Third Army. By the 24th October Army allocations for delivery had been confirmed as:
First Army – 105 M4A3E2 Jumbos
Third Army – 90 M4A3E2 Jumbos
Ninth Army – 60 M4A3E2 Jumbos
Clearly someone at 12th Army Group needed a little extra 0work on their basic maths!The last recorded delivery was on the 9th November when 746th Tank Battalion of the First Army was issued a further nine Jumbo’s.
The tanks were well received and the advantages of the additional armor were quickly appreciated. Jumbos were chosen to be the standard point tank any time advances were made with opposition expected. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m4a3e2-jumbo-assault-tank
There were also various ‘home brewed’ (unit workshop level) modifications to thicken up the frontal armour, including adding an entire Panther glacis plate to the front. https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/221398-m4a3-76-w-hvss-39thunderbolt-vii39-premium-tank/ (Ignore the W-T specific comments!)
They are test firings, probably into a test piece.
Here’s another one, from a standard Sherman. From http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/04/common-questions-unfair-testing.html
I’m sure that I’ve seen photos of a Churchill used in a similar fashion but I can’t find them online. I did find a summary of the Russian assessment of the Churchill though, which makes for interesting reading. http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/02/british-primer-minister-in-ussr.html
Those pics seem to illustrate that German armour was prone to fracture and catastrophic failure. More so than Allied tanks? .
There are a few theories about that, one being that late war German armour plate was indeed more brittle due to a deficiency in some of the rare metals used (?Molybdenum, replaced by Vanadium), or possibly the photos are of tanks that have been hit repeatedly & that the repeated hammering destroyed the armour integrity which then failed with catastrophic effect, as would any armour subjected to the same damage. http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/08/german-armour-quality.html
Yebbut, that Sherman glacis you posted has taken multiple hits and hasn’t cracked. Ditto deephorse’s pic.
This Panther has taken one hit, which probably ruined the driver’s day, the plate seems to have deformed as well as cracked and sheared at the glacis weld.
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
And this Panther turret has taken three deflected hits, and given up the ghost.
I wonder how much spalling happened on the inside when it went?
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
We’re getting a long way away from Cobra King….
With the second Panther in particular, multiple shots have been taken at it, possibly by different crews at different times, since it was SOP to shoot at any tank that wasn’t obviously already destroyed (exploded, burnt out etc) in case it was still “alive”. With that amount of damage on the outside, it’s probable that any one of those hits was lethal to the turret crew.
This Tiger has copped a similar degree of attention, without an externally obvious “KO”. The missing track is probably why it’s there of course.There’s no doubt that there was something ‘going wrong’ with the quality of the German armour in the latter part of the war. Panthers seem to be the most affected, judging by the numerous photos.
The Tiger II wasn’t immune either.
“Shot #1. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm HE-fragmentation.
Result: spalling across an area 300 mm by 300 mm. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the machine gun port burst on 3/4 of its circumference. Internal bolts holding the machine gun ball were torn off. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the right side burst, and the right side was displaced by 5 mm. The tank caught fire internally.”From http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html , which makes sobering reading. (Don’t bother about the comments section, full of trolls and panzer fan-bois).
This Tiger appears to have ‘sunk’!
We’re getting a long way away from Cobra King….
Well yes, but it keeps things interesting 🙂
With the second Panther in particular, multiple shots have been taken at it, possibly by different crews at different times, since it was SOP to shoot at any tank that wasn’t obviously already destroyed (exploded, burnt out etc) in case it was still “alive”.
Are we looking at the same photo? Because it looks to me as though 3 (or possibly 2 given the upper two gouges seem to be perfectly aligned) deflected shots have arrived from the same elevation. It’s quite possible that the tank was disabled before the turret hits, but there seem to be no other local strikes that explain the turret’s cracking inward in all directions. That glancing blows with no obvious penetration caused such damage suggests that German (rolled?) steel was a bit rubbish.
It would be interesting to know the calibre of the gun that did the damage.
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
