Picture of the day

[CV32]

I've got a difficult time believing that ONE tank can fire that fast and hit 3x in the exact same spot - at least back in those days when the gun was laid manually. One tank shooting that kind of group AFAP under stress?? I don't know about that. It's hard enough to do that with a rifle never mind a tank gun. That said, you're the tanker, not me. I was Field Artillery.

The Panther might have been stationary, in a fixed position or immobilized.

The war diary of 3rd County of London Yeomanry (Sharpshooters) for the time reports an inspection of a destroyed Panther on 21 June 1944 (which does not appear to have involved that unit) and then an engagement on 10 July involving seven Panthers (six of which were destroyed).

The war diary for 4th County of London Yeomanry (Sharpshooters), however, reports that on 11 June 1944, they encountered two Panthers, one disabled on a road and the other providing cover. 2Tp C Sqn flanked and destroyed the Panther, while infantry destroyed the second Panther with PIAT.

(Note that these units were later combined in August 1944 to the form the 3rd/4th County of London Yeomanry (Sharpshooters)).

 

[Old Albertan]

I've got a difficult time believing that ONE tank can fire that fast and hit 3x in the exact same spot - at least back in those days when the gun was laid manually. One tank shooting that kind of group AFAP under stress?? I don't know about that. It's hard enough to do that with a rifle never mind a tank gun.

The theoretical maximum ROF for the 76mm in a Sherman was 20 rounds/minute. That being said, it is unlikely that in a real world situation, that 20 rounds (a round every 3 seconds) would be achieved, and if so, not for any sustained period. 15 rounds a minute would certainly be possible, especially with adrenaline being involved. That would mean that 3 rounds could be popped off by a single tank in 12 seconds. This all depends on the skill of the loader of course and not adjusting the aim.

 

[RMXC51]

I've got a difficult time believing that ONE tank can fire that fast and hit 3x in the exact same spot - at least back in those days when the gun was laid manually. One tank shooting that kind of group AFAP under stress?? I don't know about that. It's hard enough to do that with a rifle never mind a tank gun.

That said, you're the tanker, not me. I was Field Artillery.

I'm thinking anti tank gun, myself.

 

[kawicrash]

 

[Dark Alley Dan]

Japanese anti-tank technology:

More info here on the Type 97 20mm Anti-Tank Rifle:
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/japanese-type-97-20mm-anti-tank-rifle/

(Ian does a fine job. Glad he does what he does.)

Also, the 45 mm Type 5 Recoilless Gun:

http://4.bp.########.com/-HloqtgJZueU/VgzqgvSfdQI/AAAAAAAABeg/jbQDgP4zU7M/s640/Testing%2Ba%2Banti-tank%2Bgun%2Bin%2B1944%2Bby%2Bthe%2BJapanese.JPG

http://2.bp.########.com/_YYMeAu4i7gA/TJ2uqeBvkCI/AAAAAAAAJU0/mVPdYubkxUA/s1600/japan-ww2-army-rare-pictures-004.jpg

 

[Cold Warrior]

delete

 

[Cold Warrior]

Tankers' Rule #75:

"Rule #75: Never try to hide behind a mountain that is too small."

Good group:

(Good shooting, BTW!)

 

[Cold Warrior]

One Allied tank, three quick shots; one German tank, two quick shots....

While the write up regarding this wartime picture says it was struck with HE (Chemical Energy) I feel the damage, and lack of damage, is far more consistent with the target being struck with a Armour Piercing (Kinetic Energy) round. The gouges look like others I have seen in the past is where the AP projectile scallops out a divot of target armour and the dramatic transfer of Kinetic energy on the target results in the target steel shattering. Further to support this is the lack of secondary damage within the target area note that the round bin is totally undamaged by blast or spall (only valid if the turret was as depicted in the 12 Oclock position as in the pic). There is no evidence of HE spatter or spalling on either the target armour or hull fixtures and the lack of zimmert coating in the impact area looks localized due to KE rounds and the vibration/resonance of impact....

Ditto! That was my first thought--three 'shot' rounds, but despite my skepticism, I had to accept the story from the Brits (apparently not a first-hand account). No evidence of detonation. Not HE.
'BANG!'...'BANG!'...'BANG!' "Target! Cease fire!"

OK, here's another pic to offset all the talkin':

Not glancing blows, direct hits from 75mm AP rounds. Normandy, 1944. Looks like they'd been cutting thru hedgerows. One hit near the bow gunner, and another on the gun mantlet.
If that was an 88 it would probably have blown the turret off.

 

[purple]

In the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war I examined 3 Syrian T55/T62s which had been KO'd by Israeli Centurions on the Golan heights. Each had been hit twice by 105mm APDS rounds with a hit on the front of the turret and the hull leaving the distinctive holes made by the penetrator. That was some fine, deliberate tank gunnery under duress.

 

[canuck98k]

Reality

 

[Cold Warrior]

It's a dangerous world out there!

Another reason to keep your hatch closed:
"Death from above...".

 

[bjmurata]

Pretty sobering photograph right there, shows the reality of things for so many of those guys.

 

[AP]

During Operation Goodwood...according to an interview with a German officer....anti aircraft 88mm guns were 'ordered' to engage the British and Canadian armour....what useful sort of anti-tank ammunition would they have available on an AA gun position?

 

[diopter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Pak_43

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzergranate_39

 

[Old Albertan]

During Operation Goodwood...according to an interview with a German officer....anti aircraft 88mm guns were 'ordered' to engage the British and Canadian armour....what useful sort of anti-tank ammunition would they have available on an AA gun position?

The 88s had a AP round in addition to time fuzed AA rounds. Check out the manual here - http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/tme9369agerman88mmgun.pdf

 

[scott585]

as well, early in the war, an 88 would go through almost anything with plain HE, a matilda 2 which was nearly invincible before dunkirk, had the same armour thickness as the sherman.

there was a story of a british tanker captured in north africa who told his captors that "It's quite unfair to point Anti aircraft guns at our tanks" to which the german translator replied "Its unfair of you to use tanks that require it"

 

[purple]

During Operation Goodwood...according to an interview with a German officer....anti aircraft 88mm guns were 'ordered' to engage the British and Canadian armour....what useful sort of anti-tank ammunition would they have available on an AA gun position?

Most of the British tank losses during Goodwood were caused by high velocity 75mm guns, either towed anti-tank or mounted on Panther and PzkwIV tanks, Stugs and various other SP chassis. Luftwaffe crewed 88mm DP guns actually played a minor role in the battle.

For some fresh insights into the battle I recommend, "Goodwood, The British Offensive in Normandy July 1944" by Ian Dalglish. This book is copiously illustrated with maps and photos and contains a lot of well documented research and related deductions about how the battle unfolded.

One of the Most illuminating aspects is the inclusion of a number of air photos of the battle in progress. These photos were taken by RAF PR Spitfires which were tasked to take photos to assist with determining the effects of RAF and USAAF bombing of designated targets before H hour. They unintentionaly also captured the flow of the battle in detail to include tank tracks/movement routes and individual tanks incl brew-ups in progress.

 

[AP]

Interesting....the Operation Goodwood lectures are also very good and are on Youtube....its always interesting hearing it first hand from the men who were actually there.

 

[purple]

First hand accounts are always good, but they are individual recollections of individual experiences and tend to lack an understanding of the overall situation or bigger picture, both from the friendly and enemy sides. There is a tendency for people to try to establish the larger context by repeating other accounts, many of which can become distorted or misunderstood from repeated telling by old comrades but become accepted as fact. Every allied soldier who was under German artillery or antitank fire probably came away convinced that it was 88s that were shooting against him.

Back in the Cold War days we used to study Goodwood and other German actions in Normandy looking for insights on how to withstand a Soviet armored/mechanized assault when outnumbered and outgunned. There were some valid lessons on the use of reverse slope defences and mutually supporting anti-armor fires from built up areas as well as maneuver which was anchored on defended built up areas.

The Dalglish book talks about how the British Army Staff College used to conduct tours of the Goodwood battlefield assisted by some of the British and German participants who were not shy with their opinions. One of the Germans would take a view of them versus us to the point where he had to be gently reminded that it was us, and not them, who had won the Normandy campaign.

I drove across the Goodwood battlefield last spring and found it very interesting. The only hazardous part was avoiding a collision with a horse drawn Gypsy caravan in the traffic circle at Bourguebus. The lay of the land is very much the same except for urban sprawl and enlargement of the "Goodwood villages" to the east and south of Caen. The road network is somewhat different as well. One thing that Dalglish comments on is the difference in agricultural crops between then and now. In 1944 older, taller varieties of cereal crops and corn were grown which was more of an obstacle to observation on the Goodwood battlefield. Nowadays the French are very big into growing canola which is a much shorter crop.

 

[Dark Alley Dan]

Normandy.