88mm Flak Gun and Panther Tank found in villa.

[Hangarshuffle]

That's in a cellar in a villa, in Germany. More here;


Second World War tank and anti-aircraft gun found hidden in basement of villa in Germany - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11716177/Second-World-War-tank-and-anti-aircraft-gun-found-hidden-in-basement-of-villa-in-Germany.html)


88's got a few rings round the barrel. The Panther looks superb. Nazi weaponry looks so brilliant and so advanced for its time-way ahead of Britain.. wonder what else is still out there.

[Molesworth Hold]

The Panther was built by the British after war for evaluation purposes. In 1977 it was discovered in a scrap yard in West Ewell Surrey. It was bought by Herr Flick (yes really) and shipped to Germany for restoration.

[Trim Stab]

Mr Orth said the man has a "a certain fondness for particular things", adding: "Some people like steam trains, others like tanks.”

Give the old fella his tank back ffs.

[Wander00]

The 88mm was not only an anti-aircraft weapon but allegedly the best ant-tank gun as well

[NutLoose]

More pictures

Kellerfund in Heikendorf: Weltkriegspanzer und Flakgeschütz - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Panorama (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/kellerfund-in-heikendorf-weltkriegspanzer-und-flakgeschuetz-fotostrecke-128090-tablet.html)

[MPN11]

Meanwhile, in the US of A ... Video: World's largest private tank fleet up for auction - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/10950933/Worlds-largest-private-tank-fleet-up-for-auction.html)

[NutLoose]

The Panther was built by the British after war for evaluation purposes. In 1977 it was discovered in a scrap yard in West Ewell Surrey. It was bought by Herr Flick (yes really) and shipped to Germany for restoration.

I remember reading a magazine about it, they had a huge pile of scrap that they processed, new scrap permanently topping the pile up, eventually the yard was to be closed and the scrap pile was being run down and when they got to the bottom everyone was stunned to see the panther sitting there with its barrel sawn off and lying besides it.

[Wensleydale]

Had this been an aeroplane and the facts in the Telegraph wrong then there would be a few outraged comments. All I will say here is that this is a late model Panther Ausf G and much later than the 1943 date for the tank quoted in the article. (Count the wheel rivets man!)

[Rosevidney1]

Regarding the famed 88mm gun in the anti-tank role I was once assured by a colonel in the Royal Artillery that the British 3.7" would have been superior in the same role but the military mind at the time would not develop a suitable projectile for ground targets as the nomenclature was Gun, Anti-Aircraft!

[Mr Mac]

Great tank and gun in their day with well trained crews. Would not have liked to come up against either in a Sherman - would have been the worst of days - ex Tankie and ex 2nd Lt Rupert.


Regards
Mr Mac

[Radix]

...........

[jolihokistix]

Agree with the above. Give the poor man his stuff back and leave him alone. Busybodies and snitchers helping to grease the wheels of the nanny state. :ugh: :mad:

Quote: The mayor of Heikendorf, Alexander Orth, who was present at the tank's remove, said the discovery came as no surprise, telling the newspaper that the owner "was chugging around in that thing during the snow catastrophe in 1978".

[herkman]

After the war the UK army took over the panzer tank factory and I believe using some of the original German labour plus all the parts which were lying around built I believe 17 tanks.

Some of these were shipped to the UK and they were extensively tested by the RME.

The big problem they encountered was in the drive line which left much be be desired. The post war Leopard seemed to address the faults which is why so many are still in service.

Regards

Col

[Buster Hyman]

Can't read the full article but I can't see why they couldn't just disable the weaponry & leave him alone with his collection. I'm assuming there's a specific law against it for them to act but still, there's ways & means to keep everyone happy.

[ShotOne]

Our tanks may have been "behind" but we outproduced Germany by about 18 to 1. Quantity, as Mr Stalin said, has a quality of its own.

And, yes, please give the man his tank back.

[Wensleydale]

I remember during the Cold War being told that although the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact forces had the quantity of equipment, it couldn't compete with the quality of equipment in the West. I occasionally threw into the discussion that this flew in the face of the experience of WW2.......

[Navaleye]

My vote goes to the 17pdr. My father was a radio operator/gunner in a Sherman Firefly and he killed 2 Panthers and Tiger plus Mk3 and Mk4. The boxheads were good but they were scared of the 17pdr. I believe one got Wittman.

[Wensleydale]

Navaleye - concur....especially when used with APDS ammunition. The Panther is usually quoted as the best medium tank of WW2, but I would put the British late war Comet well up there as one of the best.

[Hempy]

The Krauts never quite got it right. The Panzer I, II, III and IV, the Panther and the Tiger/King Tiger were all 'good', but they all had deficiencies. The Panzers and Panthers had too narrow a track to match it with the T-34 in Russian winter conditions, the Tiger/King Tiger had the venerable '88 gun but was too heavy and slow.

Probably a good thing tbh.

p.s concur. Give the man his tank back.

[stilton]

Can anyone explain the device at the end of the gun barrel on the Panther ?


I've seen this on several tanks and have always been puzzled as to it's function and purpose ?

[ORAC]

Can anyone explain the device at the end of the gun barrel on the Panther ? I've seen this on several tanks and have always been puzzled as to it's function and purpose ?

Muzzle Brake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_brake)

[Wensleydale]

Its a Muzzle Brake.....the gases from the shot pass sideways through the device and help to stop some of the recoil although the side blast that this device produced could give away the gun's position. Therefore, some mobile anti-tank guns dispensed with it.

[Navaleye]

Wensleydale

especially when used with APDS ammunition

He did the test firings for Sabot in Dorset. Unfortunately the planners placed the infantry ahead of the tank and wondered why they fell down when a sabot shell was fired.

Also a Firefly could could not fire on the move. It would strip the gearbox.

[Wander00]

Does that reduce by much the exit velocity of the round?

[Navaleye]

When they took the goveners off for the Hamburg tank race they got to over 30mph. I not sure that would make a huge difference:eek:

[Navaleye]

When they took the goveners off for the Hamburg tank race they got to over 30mph. I'm not sure that would make a huge difference :eek:

[Dan Winterland]

Also a Firefly could could not fire on the move. It would strip the gearbox.

Hardly any tanks of that era fired on the move. They would miss!

[Yamagata ken]

@ Stilton. That device is a muzzle brake, the purpose is to divert some of the enengy from firing the projectile to reducing the recoil (I think). Happy to be corrected.

Question. When all closed up in a tank, how does the gunner get to aim the gun? How does he do his sighting?

[goudie]

The only reason they won was that the German industry got crippled and the German production lines just couldn't produce enough tanks.

Thanks to the Lancaster's and B17's, flown by courageous men, perhaps!

[NutLoose]

Question. When all closed up in a tank, how does the gunner get to aim the gun? How does he do his sighting?

They have an optical sight alongside the gun, they also have periscopes on the roof.

This is the machine gunners periscope, as you see it can rotate

http://s427.photobucket.com/user/Garry_Redmon/media/Panther%20II/PantherII28.jpg.html?sort=3&o=19

Internal view

http://s427.photobucket.com/user/Garry_Redmon/media/Panther%20II/PantherII03.jpg.html?sort=3&o=41

[Yamagata ken]

Thanks muchly :thumbsup:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Goudie :ok:
The failure of the Panther was mainly due to a very overstressed final drive (post WW2, the French operated the Panther and found it needed a final drive major overhaul after every 150km of use). This in turn was caused by industrial shortages forcing it to be built with lower strength steel in a less effective design. The two major problems were lack of high strength steel and lack of machine tools (the weak final drive had straight-cut gears as there was insufficient tooling to make the preferred helically-cut gears). The lack of machine tools was down to area bombing, which deliberately targeted this capacity. They didn't try to hit the machines, the idea was simply to blow the roofs off and let the weather do the work.

Coupled with this was the German policy of maximising output at the expense of spares. So the Panther would arrive at the front by rail, advance 100 km and break down. With no spares, the technicians would have to rob the spares off another u/s Panther. Except, of course, this was probably u/s because of a broken final drive also.
43% of Panthers at the battle of Kursk went u/s through mechanical failure.

So, arguably the Germans did produce enough tanks, but it was meeting this target at the expense of serviceability and spares which did them in.

[dagenham]

Something always sinister about our germainian friends and their basements !

Re muzzle break it can serve three purposes

As already stated it reduces recoil by dirverting gas rearward and as it obeys newton's laws offsets the recoil by applying a forward pressure

Secondarily if diverted appropriatley it reduces elevation due to recoil and puts the gun back on original target ( or more closer) for a second shot if needed

I also understand ( although memory fades )!it can also give be used to reduce losses due to the resistance of air ahead of the round but obviously cannot increase pressure to increase range.. Something to with aperture size and location ( front whole is limiting and side vents have a bigger effect in releasing the pressure ahead of the shell and as they do for energising gases from the charge).. I am sure some one here can elaborated... It's all very complicated and nurse called nap time halfway through the explanation

[Wensleydale]

The early Panthers also suffered from an overheating exhaust which often led to the tank catching fire. Many of the Kursk losses were from this source.

[dagenham]

The early Panthers also suffered from an overheating exhaust which often led to the tank catching fire. Many of the Kursk losses were from this source.

I am sure they would say that or was it effective air to ground and the il2 doing it's job... I guess the others would say that too!

[Hempy]

Maintenance wasn't their strong point. The lost dozens outside Stalingrad during Operation Uranus when it was discovered that mice had decided that a hull was a nice place to keep warm while they ate the insulation off the electrical wiring. Nom nom nom!

[Wander00]

Orac - since you had not specified which end of the gun, I nearly replied "a tank"...............


now I look at it, not that funny either, but it is a very hot afternoon, and I have just been to have a replacement exhaust delivered from UK fitted, and guess what, they sent Ford Focus gaskets.........for a Nissan X-Trail. So I am grumpy anyway!

[MAINJAFAD]

My vote goes to the 17pdr. My father was a radio operator/gunner in a Sherman Firefly and he killed 2 Panthers and Tiger plus Mk3 and Mk4. The boxheads were good but they were scared of the 17pdr. I believe one got Wittman.

My late grandfather was an instructor in the army during WWII and got chance to fire a 17pdr. He rated it as the most amazing weapon he every got to play with. The other plus point for the gun was it was air transportable in a Hamilcar, thus 6th Airborne had a few on the ground on D-day along with their prime movers. I do recall seeing somewhere that the Firefly crew got into a habit of trying to camouflage the front end of the gun to make it look like a standard 76mm gun, as the boxheads were scared of the Firefly and they would be the first tank to be engaged by the Germans if they spotted one. There is some debate about what got Wittman. Most of his troop on the day he was killed were taken out by Firefly's on his right flank. However on his left flank were a troop of Canadian standard Shermans hidden behind a large wall and one of them got a close range shot in the aft quarter of Withman's Tiger with a 76mm which was the shot that killed him.

[NutLoose]

You should try the free game War-Thunder online, trust me the Russians that developed it, seem to have thrown the book out as to what tanks are better than others, heck they even have T54's fighting Panthers.

[Rosevidney1]

The 17 pr and the 88mm were excellent tank guns but the Soviet JS with its 122mm gun firing a solid full bore shot would reduce any armoured vehicle to scrap metal. It was further developed after the war resulting in the T-10 which forced the western powers to scramble to find the equivalent. Neither the optimistically named Conqueror or the M-107 even came close.

[lsh]

Must admit, until now, I thought that the lump referred to at the end of the barrel was so that we could identify a T62, as opposed to the T55/54, where it was part-way down the barrel!!

lsh
:E

[Wensleydale]

Other way round Ish. The lump was a fumes extractor - a series of baffles surrounding the barrel which caused fumes from the explosive charge to exit at the danger end of the barrel and not go back into the fighting compartment and gas the crew.

[typerated]

That's a really interesting post Fox3.


Have you a source for that information?

[Radix]

...........

[air pig]

The main problem with the Panther and the Tiger is that they were highly engineered armoured vehicles which other have said were prone to breakdown, whereas the the T34 was rough ready and could be assembled quickly and with the 76mm gun very good. Produced in amazing numbers even driven out of the factory at the Battle of Stalingrad and straight into combat. Remember how many Warsaw Pact armoured vehicles if the Russians ever wanted a holiday in France had, you may have run out of anti-tank assets including missiles before they ran out of tanks.

In the end it does sometimes come down the quantity against quality argument, put enough armour into a small area, even though inferior you may win the battle. but sometimes with superior skills and tactics including the battlefield a small number of armoured vehicles may have a disproportionate effect on the outcome, for instance the Battle of Villars Bocage in Normandy.

[Wensleydale]

Air Pig.... Wittman may have destroyed 25 armoured vehicles on his own at Villers Bocage, but in the end the Brits won the battle for the town with the loss of four Tigers that the Germans could ill afford.

[Wander00]

"Nazi Mega Structures" on More4 the other night was about German tanks -and Russian T34s were made in tractor factories, whilst German tanks were precision engineered, and thus a nightmare to maintain

[Wensleydale]

"German tanks were precision engineered, and thus a nightmare to maintain"

To say nothing about expensive and time consuming to produce.

[stilton]

Sounds like a Mercedes.

[NutLoose]

The T34 construction was poor, some of the welding was poor, but quantity has a quality all of its own' simple things like sloping the armour to increase its thickness was another innovation over the Tiger. The fact the Germans could outgun them didn't help when you are outnumbered.

[Radix]

...........

[Hempy]

^^ Which all goes to prove Hitlers folly invading the USSR in the first place. The USSR always had the man power and political will to defeat the Germans, it was only a matter of blood and time.

As the Bulgarian ambassador to the USSR, Ivan Staminov, said to Stalin when the latter was considering offering terms to the Germans during the early stages of Barbarossa; "Even if you retreat to the Urals, you'll still win in the end!".

[air pig]

Which all goes to prove Hitlers folly invading the USSR in the first place. The USSR always had the man power and political will to defeat the Germans, it was only a matter of blood and time.


Hitler's big folly was going into Russia late in 1941 because he had to deploy forces into the Balkans to attack Greece to get the Italians out of the sh1te. If he had started in spring 1942 he may have had a better result.

[Rosevidney1]

The permutations of the 'what ifs' of history are virtually infinite!

[Hempy]

Given the logistical nightmare that the USSR proved to be, I don't think an extra 10 divsions would have made a difference. He bit off more than he could chew, and then ran his army ragged by continuously shifting the goal posts.

Even if he'd taken Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad and pushes the Russians back to the Urals, the outcome (imo) would have been the same. It just would have taken longer.

[NutLoose]

I read a book on the Russian conflict, they used to work out the amount of guns the Germans had and the firing rate of them, they then worked out the time it would take to cross the ground, then calculate 1000 rpm, 2 minutes to cross the ground equals 2000 rounds, they would then send over 2500 troops thus assuring victory.

[air pig]

Hempy,

In 1941 the Whermacht was still to a great majority a horsedrawn army rather than mechanised, maybe another year or even two would have allowed the reverse to happen.

[Hempy]

airpig,

If Hitler wasn't Hitler you may have been right. If he'd consolidated his position in western Europe for a few years things might have been different (although they were still relying on horsedrawn transport in 1944).

He was a compulsive gambler, always looking for more as soon as possible. Barbarossa was always his 'end game' requirement for WW2 (see Mein Kampf)

p.s All that is on the proviso that the Soviets sat on their thumbs expecting nothing to happen in the interim. Even still Germany in 1940 had a population around 60 million, the USSR around 170 million. Do the math.

[air pig]

Hempy,

Can't disagree with your view, but a population of 170 million people over 5 to 7 time zones and some like the Ukrainians and the Baltic states very anti-Russia mass of a good few million. Remember Hitler did have some allies in Europe, not many I'll grant you.

Stalin also had his own eastern front to contend with and if he had come to an accord with the Japanese then maybe Stalin would also have had a war on two fronts. Germany did not have a land war in Europe on two fronts until 1943 with the invasion of Italy. He should have stayed out of North Africa but Mussolini needed the Afrika Korps to bail him out of trouble, same as in Greece.

If he'd stayed away from Africa and consolidated during 1942/3 he may have in my opinion with the Japanese on board, taken Russia. it would have taken time but it was doable.

[effortless]

Re. Reliability, German engines suffered in the cold especially the Maybach. On the russian front, they had to be started every couple of hours or they wouldn't start again. T34, built for the conditions.

[Hempy]

airpig,

All I'll add is that those 5-7 time zones and anti-Russian population all goes back to my original premise, 'political will'. They went where they were told and did what they were told and they kept their mouths shut, otherwise they were headed to a gulag in Siberia (if they were lucky...) The NKVD was very efficient..

As for the Japs, Stalin had a very lucky break with Richard Sorge (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge). He knew that the Japanese had no designs on the USSR unless;

a. Moscow was captured by the Germans, and
b. The Kwantung Army in China was 3 times the size of Soviet Far Eastern forces, and
c. A civil war started in Siberia.

a. Was a possibility, b. relied on success Japanese in the SPA, and c. was extremely unlikely in any circumstances. The Japs were never a serious concern to the Soviets.

[Rosevidney1]

Air cooled diesel beats liquid cooled petrol in sub zero conditions. Air cooled aero engines cope with tropical temperatures better than liquid cooled ones.
In the temperate zones take your pick.

[Chugalug2]

airpig:-
it would have taken time but it was doableWhich of course was what the Manhattan Project was all about, defeating a Nazi Germany that had been given time to develop and use a nuclear device. Given that it wasn't given the time, Truman used his bombs instead to save Allied lives (and many more Japanese ones) being lost in an invasion of Japan.

German nuclear weapon research has always been downplayed, but if Hitler had years rather than months left to get there I see no reason to doubt he would have succeeded. You only have to consider the technical lead he had in rocket, jet, and submarine propulsion at war's end. Mercifully that extinguished all of his various lights of perverted science, which had been greatly dimmed by the Strategic Bombing Campaign. That of course is a continuing bone of contention here at dear old Aunty PPRuNe...

[dirkdj]

There was no other reason for Truman to use the A-bomb except to show the Russians who was the boss; The Japanese had been surrendering for weeks.

[Wensleydale]

"There was no other reason for Truman to use the A-bomb except to show the Russians who was the boss; The Japanese had been surrendering for weeks."


I think that your history teacher needs to be sacked if that is your understanding. Perhaps you have not heard of Okinawa?

[Hempy]

Wensley, if you read the history, Fatman and Tallboy WERE just as much about the Russians as they were about the Japs. Not only were they decisive in ending the Pacific war, they were meant as a clear message to Stalin as well.

'This is what we can do. We know you can't do this yet. Back
off'

He did..

[Buster Hyman]

The Japanese had been surrendering for weeks.
:DThat's double plus good!

[dirkdj]

if you read 'The untold History of the United States' by Oliver Stone, chapter 8, you may find a different version of the history that your teacher brought to you.
Schoolbook history is usually written by the winning side with a purpose.

[Lonewolf_50]

if you read 'The untold History of the United States' by Oliver Stone, chapter 8, you may find a different version of the history that your teacher brought to you.
Schoolbook history is usually written by the winning side with a purpose. I like this. Citing Oliver Stone as an authority on history.
*my ribs hurt*

As to Fox3's source on the Panther:
You can head to the Wikipedia page for the Panther tank and find a similar summary. down in the bottom where the sources are, there looks to have been good research into that article. We had a discussion on Panthers/Tigers and such here (or at Jet Blast?) recently which got me looking up such things. Until I read that article, I had not idea that German steel choices for critical transmission gears were what drove their maintenance problems, but I did understand how it was that this decision was made. Hitler made a variety of similar decisions.

He was an artist, FFS, not an engineer by education.

PPS: please give that man his tank back.

[dirkdj]

About the Authors
Oliver Stone has won numerous Academy Awards for his work on such iconic films as Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Natural Born Killers, Salavador and W. Peter Kuznick is a Professor of History and the director of the award-winning Nuclear Studies Institute at American University and is currently serving his third term as distinguished lecturer with the Organisation of American Historians. He has written extensively about science and politics, nuclear history and Cold War culture.

[Lonewolf_50]

About the Authors
Oliver Stone has won numerous Academy Awards for his work on such iconic films as Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Natural Born Killers, Salavador Fine documentaries, all.
Wait, no they are not.
He is a story teller, not a historian. Please discern the difference.
W. Peter Kuznick is a Professor of History and the director of the award-winning Nuclear Studies Institute at American University and is currently serving his third term as distinguished lecturer with the Organisation of American Historians. He has written extensively about science and politics, nuclear history and Cold War culture. Fascinating chap, to be sure.

[onetrack]

Of course, the basic question that is the crux of the matter in the confiscation of the 88mm AT gun and the Panther tank, is whether civilians should be allowed to possess items of military hardware at all.

Despite being technically "disabled", they are all capable of rapidly being returned to fully operational wartime status (in secret), with the potential for disastrous results in the hands of someone pyschologically unstable.

With an ever-increasing number of people suffering from mental instability via drug use, overwhelming but unbalanced feelings of personal injustice, and marginalisation, it doesn't take much to tip some people over the edge.

I would be a little nervous about any neighbour of mine who was becoming more irrational by the day, at the same time as he was going on a military hardware collection binge. :suspect:

[Navaleye]

if the owner of said devices had stashed ammunition for them they would not work. 75 or 88mm cartridges would be long dead by now. They are interesting relics nothing more but should be preserved.

[Mr Mac]

On the discussions on Panther,s and Tigers I re call seeing some documentation which was done pre Normandy when the British Army was looking at the statistics of how many Sherman,s it took to kill 1nr Tiger and they were working on a 23 to 1 ratio. The big concern was the moral of the crews in the 24th Sherman onwards who would have to go hunt the next Tiger ! As it was I do not think the ratio did get quite that bad apart from some memorable actions already alluded to. As far as German crew morale in Tigers and Panthers was concerned they appear to have kept it together until the bitter end, though all the documentation I have read does emphasise there fear of "Jabo" (ground attack A/C ) which accounted for many tanks and crews in the field and transit.


With regards Warsaw Pact when I was bouncing round West Germany in that model of UK engineering a Chieftain in late 1970,s we were told the WP could put a tank every 3m facing West from the Artic circle to the Black Sea. Admittedly they would not all be 1970,s vintage but it still seemed a very large number to have to fight and knock out to this lowly 2nd Lt !


Regards
Mr Mac

[Navaleye]

In the British Army, a tank troop consisted of six tanks, one of which was a Firefly. The idea was the the 75mm Shermans would distract the Panther or Tiger, while the Firefly would get in a position to kill it.

[Wensleydale]

Actually, a troop in WW2 was originally of 3 tanks - a single Firefly was added to each troop of Sherman equipped armoured regiments in the European Theatre in order to "up" the firepower making four tanks per troop in total. Each Squadron consisted of 4 troops plus an HQ troop of 3 or 4 tanks. There were 3 squadrons in each armoured regiment. The 4 tanks in each troop had the callsign alpha through to delta, with the firefly having the callsign "Charlie". The typical formation for the troop was a triangle of standard gun Shermans with the firefly a little to the rear - any contact would usually result in the call to "bring up the Charlie tank".


Armoured regiments equipped with Cromwells, rather than Shermans, were sometimes issued with "Challenger" A30 tanks rather than Fireflies to give them their 17 Pdr upgrade. Independent Armoured Brigades (usually equipped with Churchills and operating with an organic infantry division) did not receive a 17 Pdr vehicle, and maintained the 3 tank troop.

[rolling20]

Just to put the record on Japan straight.
Aug 6th- A bomb on Hiroshima.
Aug 8th-9th- Russia defies the Soviet- Japanese Neutrality Pact, invades Manchuria.
Aug 9th- A bomb on Nagasaki

It has been said that the Russian campaign in Manchuria was the reason that the Japanese surrendered when they did.
After Nagasaki, Truman ordered military operations against Japan be continued.

Aug 15th- The Emperor announced the surrender.
Aug 20th -The Russian campaign ended.
Sept 2nd- Formal surrender signed.

[Hempy]

To be accurate, Roosevelt only asked for Soviet help against Japan at Yalta because he wasn't sure at that stage if the nukes would work. The Japanese knew they faced inihilation after Nagasaki proved to them Hiroshima wasn't a one off.

Stalin was a cagey f:mad:er. He grabbed as much as he could while it was there for the pickings (Sakhalin etc)

I think you'll find though that the claim "that the Russian campaign in Manchuria was the reason that the Japanese surrendered" is a little myopic.

[Lonewolf_50]

To be accurate, Roosevelt only asked for Soviet help against Japan at Yalta because he wasn't sure at that stage if the nukes would work. The Japanese knew they faced inihilation after Nagasaki proved to them Hiroshima wasn't a one off.

Stalin was a cagey f:mad:er. He grabbed as much as he could while it was there for the pickings (Sakhalin etc)

I think you'll find though that the claim "that the Russian campaign in Manchuria was the reason that the Japanese surrendered" is a little myopic. Agreed on that last point. The bolded point underscores how hard the war with the Japanese was. Even with them being pushed back, they were fighting hard. FDR was looking for a way to end the war as soon as he could, and bringing the boys home rather than having them die overseas. Truman followed through on that.

[tdracer]

The idea that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and dropping the A-bombs was intended as a warning to the Russians gained popularity during the anti-war 1970s.

It's proponents pretty much all have one thing in common - they didn't live through it. Those who were actually part of what happened in 1945 pretty much dismissed the whole concept out of hand.
Not only were the Japanese not "surrendering for weeks", they were fighting with ever increasing resolve as the Allies closed in on the home islands. After the Emperor announced his intent to surrender, there was an attempted 'palace coup' by some of the war lords who were intent on continuing the fight.

You see, I've spent more than a little time studying this particular aspect of USA history. My dad fought the Japanese in the Pacific during the war, including Guadalcanal (Purple Heart) and the Philippines. At the time they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, he was a Lieutenant training for the initial landings on the Japanese home islands - his platoon was going to be part of the second wave of landings. He had been warned to expect 80% casualties, while Japanese losses were expected to be ~10x higher (and precious few Japanese casualties survived).

Dropping the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima may have saved more lives than any other act in WWII.

BTW, back to the original thread topic - I read a book on WWII tanks many years ago (it had lots of neat cutaway illustrations and such - quite an interesting read). IIRC, the reason the Sherman (and other US tanks) had such mediocre guns was that the planners didn't foresee "tank vs. tank" as being the predominate battle tactic. Stopping tanks would be done by "tank destroyers" (relatively fast and lightly armored with big anti-tank guns). It wasn't until well after the US entry into the war that it became obvious that tanks needed to be able to take on other tanks effectively. Further, when the Sherman first showed up in North Africa, it was quite a shock to the Germans - clearly superiour to the Mark III and IV panzers that made up the majority the German tank forces. It wasn't until the Panthers and Tigers started showing up in force that the Sherman was in trouble.
One thing I never understood was, after they came up with the upgunned Firefly Sherman, why didn't they make that the standard kit? Was it due to the availability (or lack there of) of the 17 pounder gun?

[Lonewolf_50]

BTW, back to the original thread topic - I read a book on WWII tanks many years ago (it had lots of neat cutaway illustrations and such - quite an interesting read). IIRC, the reason the Sherman (and other US tanks) had such mediocre guns was that the planners didn't foresee "tank vs. tank" as being the predominate battle tactic.
Not to mention the point that a critical design feature of the Sherman was based on how many would fit on a ship that would transport it across the ocean. That has BFA to do with good tank warfare, except that if you can't get to the fight you can't be in it. ;)

[Hempy]

re Firefly. It didn't go into production until early 1944. By D-Day there simply just weren't enough going around.

[tdracer]

Lonewolf, again going from distant memory, but I think the width of the Sherman was dictated by the standard width of the US rail system - i.e. that it would fit on the standard rail car and fit through the normal rail tunnels and bridges. Hence the relatively tall and narrow profile.

IIRC, the US produced ~50,000 Shermans during WWII, while total German production of Panther, Tiger, and Tiger II tanks was a few thousand.

[rolling20]

I think you'll find though that the claim "that the Russian campaign in Manchuria was the reason that the Japanese surrendered" is a little myopic.

Why did Truman order hostilities to be resumed?
Why did the USAAF want a 3rd bomb dropped as a wake up call on Tokyo? Because the Japanese were stalling on negotiations. It would seem a 3rd bomb was being prepared, but not for Tokyo, more likely Sapporo.
Why did the USAAF launch a 'thousand plane raid' on Aug14/15th?
Not me but several historians have pointed out the swift Russian victories impacted more on the Japanese leadership and brought about the surrender.

[Hempy]

Well if that's the case it's a pity the US wasted all that money on the Manhatten Project then. All they needed to do was wait for the Soviets to invade Manchuria :rolleyes:

[Wensleydale]

One of Rommel's most successful tactics in the Western Desert was to use his own tanks to lure a British counter attack onto his very effective anti-tank guns. Early British Tanks did not have guns capable of firing HE shells (only 2x close support (CS) tanks with "howitzers" were available to each regiment) and therefore the British Armour did not have an effective anti-anti-tank gun capability. The M4 Sherman gave the British armour that HE capability...however the 17 pdr, although it could shoot an HE shell, was not very effective in this role - the shell casing had to be very thick and heavy to withstand the high velocity of the gun, and weight of explosive in the HE shell was much reduced.


However, several methods were tried to fit the 17 pdr into other tanks...the main problem being the diameter of the turret ring and the ability to fit the tank onto railway running stock. In the Firefly, the 17 pdr had to be mounted sideways to get the gun to fit inside the turret and was therefore awkward to load. It was not until the Comet, arrived in spring 1945 that the British armour finally got an effective mount for the 17 pdr.

[mr fish]

the germans were so wary of the 17pdr that some enterprising tankies would slip a long piece of mild steel over the standard Sherman barrel to create the illusion of a firefly.


seems strange that he cannot own a panther or decommed 88....maybe he should save up for a newbuild ME262!!!

[Wokkafans]

the germans were so wary of the 17pdr that some enterprising tankies would slip a long piece of mild steel over the standard Sherman barrel to create the illusion of a firefly.


seems strange that he cannot own a panther or decommed 88....maybe he should save up for a newbuild ME262!!!

While some Firefly crews would attempt to camoflage the 17pdr as they were the priority target for the Germans in any engagement.

Canadian 5th armoured division Sherman Firefly in Holland, 1945:

http://www.scaleplasticandrail.com/kaboom/images/stories/tasca/shermanfirefly/01-APGShermanFireflyIcHybrid5CanadianADPortenHollandApril1945.j pg

Pretoria Regiment in Italy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/SHERMAN_TANKS_OF_PRETORIA_REGIMENT_IN_ITALY.jpg

[Wensleydale]

Interesting that the photograph above claims to show the Pretoria Regiment which was the senior Armoured Regiment of the SA 6th Armoured Division in Italy. As the senior regiment, the circular squadron marking on the turret should be red (the Circle is for C Sqn). It seems a little light in colour to be red and is more likely Yellow which would make this tank from the junior regiment which for 6th AD would be the SA Special Service Brigade. For those interested, the middle regiment had blue markings and HQ units had a white diamond; A Sqn had a tri-Angle, and B sqn had a square (Box). (Armoured car units which had an extra "D" Sqn had a vertical solid wide bar).


The other way of checking is to look for the standard vehicle formation markings and number, but these are not on these particular vehicles. (The censor might have got to them which was not unusual for wartime photographs).


Oh the sadness of building tank dioramas for many years.

[NutLoose]

I'm building. 1/16 Pz p38t ef at the moment Wensleydale, I then want the trumpeter 1/16 Panzer 4

[Wensleydale]

The problem with 1/16th scale is ...where to keep it once it's built. Most of my dioramas (1/35th) have gone by the wayside, and I have not been allowed to build another one for many years. I discovered that enamel paints, carpets, and a 3 year old did not mix well....and it was all my fault of course. :ugh: