"designed to look deadly"

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Oct 2018 16:02

jesk wrote:
02 Oct 2018 08:41
On the "strength of tanks." One shot, small hole, crew killed.

And I raise you a tank with 53 hits:

Mr Churchill's Tank. D Fletcher Schifffer.
Page 106

The Special Tank Squadron was by now being referred to as Kingforce after their commanding officer and it was Norris King who Ied the way in T68189/R, followed by 2~d Lieutenant Appleby in T31665/R and Corporal Kelly in T68186/R.
Corporal Kelly did not Iast very Iong. When his 6-pounder gun recoiled after the first round had been fired it stuck, refusing to run out again. Unable to contribute more to the action Corporal Kelly ordered his driver to engage reverse and quietly withdrew from action. Nobody knows precisely what happened to 2/LtAppleby. His tank was seen to advance into the thick of the action. For a while it disappeared over the edge of the ridge but a short time Iater it was seen reversing slowly out of action. Then it stopped, smoke appeared and it finally burst into flames and continued to burn for the rest of the night. Only one man, and he wounded, is believed to have survived from the crew of five. When it was examined Iater it was seen that 38 rounds of 50mm calibre had struck the front of the tank, one of which had penetrated. There was damage from one high explosive round and six strikes from 75mm guns, one of which had penetrated. This was probably the shot that did the damage. However on closer inspection eight strikes were found on the back of the tank, one of which had gone through the gearbox and three into the turret. They were of 57mm calibre and had obviously come from British six-pounder guns.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Oct 2018 16:20

jesk wrote:
02 Oct 2018 08:41
On the "strength of tanks." One shot, small hole, crew killed.

Image

That is not a penetration. The plug has just come out.
Below shows a penetration and you can see the plug is still in situ in the tank with a penetration.
IS-2 Grabbs (6)-tiddddledey.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 02 Oct 2018 19:06, edited 3 times in total.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 02 Oct 2018 18:21

BDV wrote:
02 Oct 2018 15:10
jesk wrote: On the "strength of tanks." One shot, small hole, crew killed.
Plural of anecdote is not data.

There's a reason why hundred of thousands of tanks were produced during the war but less than 10,000 were active at any given time.
2 years at the 38th parallel in Korea were going positional battles. Thousands of tanks burned down and there is a reason for that too.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 02 Oct 2018 18:23

Michael Kenny wrote:
02 Oct 2018 16:20
That is not a penetration. The plug has just come out.
This is a penetration and you can see the plug is still in situ .
What plug? What did you want to say?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Oct 2018 19:02

jesk wrote:
02 Oct 2018 18:23
What plug? What did you want to say?
The 'hole' in the IS-2 you posted is not a penetration. I have edited my last post to make the difference clearer,

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 02 Oct 2018 19:12

Michael Kenny wrote:
02 Oct 2018 19:02
The 'hole' in the IS-2 you posted is not a penetration. I have edited my last post to make the difference clearer,
another IS-2 with the same hole 8O

Image

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Oct 2018 19:15

jesk wrote:
02 Oct 2018 19:12
Michael Kenny wrote:
02 Oct 2018 19:02
The 'hole' in the IS-2 you posted is not a penetration. I have edited my last post to make the difference clearer,
another IS-2 with the same hole 8O

Image
Every single IS-2 had that 'hole'. It was cast into the turret.
screens2wrthot-vertsde.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 02 Oct 2018 19:22

Not relevant. Tanks in any case destroyed. Just the high density of defense promotes to turn tanks into useless toys.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6477
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Oct 2018 19:27

jesk wrote:
02 Oct 2018 19:22
Not relevant. Tanks in any case destroyed.
Every IS-2 you find 'destroyed' will have that 'hole' because every single IS-2 had that hole. The fact you thought it was a penetration shows you don't know much about the IS-2.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by jesk » 02 Oct 2018 19:32

Michael Kenny wrote:
02 Oct 2018 19:27
Every IS-2 you find 'destroyed' will have that 'hole' because every single IS-2 had that hole. The fact you thought it was a penetration shows you don't know much about the IS-2.
Probably wrong. Read in Berlin there were quite a few seemingly whole Soviet tanks. In the tower a hole the size of a coin. A cumulative projectile pierced armor, killing tankers with a spray of molten steel.

Gilles de Rais
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 23 Jul 2009 18:29

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Gilles de Rais » 02 Oct 2018 19:33

Andy H wrote:
02 Oct 2018 15:37
Gilles de Rais wrote:
29 Sep 2018 20:53
I don't think Tiger tanks were a mistake, as they were rather a necessity. They were actually not built as Wunderwaffe, but as a reaction to the heavy Soviet tanks such as KV. Critics of Tigers forget that Soviets also empleyed heavy tanks and if Germans haven't build these models, their defeat on the Eastern Front would only come sooner and not later. Tiger tanks have played a huge role in slowing down Soviet (and Allied) offensives late in the war.
Hi Gilles de Rais

They played a role but not huge in the scheme of things.
In specific engagements thier prescence was a factor, but such were their relative small numbers that anything more than a localised success was unusual. I'd be surprised if there combined presence added more than a few weeks (if that) onto the war

The Tigers were planned as an answer to but ended up as a question.

Logitically the Tigers were a pain in the butt not just mechanically but also logistically to move, either by rail or road (especially the King Tiger).

Tigers were a luxury they couldn't afford (literraly) They would have been better off building more Stugs and other SPG's to counter the Allied tank threat after 1943. Aside from minor offensives with limited goals and longterm aspirations were well behind Germany from 1943 omwards.

Regards

Andy H
How would Stugs counter IS tanks that Soviets deployed?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Peter89 » 05 Oct 2018 07:57

Gilles de Rais wrote:
02 Oct 2018 19:33
Andy H wrote:
02 Oct 2018 15:37
Gilles de Rais wrote:
29 Sep 2018 20:53
I don't think Tiger tanks were a mistake, as they were rather a necessity. They were actually not built as Wunderwaffe, but as a reaction to the heavy Soviet tanks such as KV. Critics of Tigers forget that Soviets also empleyed heavy tanks and if Germans haven't build these models, their defeat on the Eastern Front would only come sooner and not later. Tiger tanks have played a huge role in slowing down Soviet (and Allied) offensives late in the war.
Hi Gilles de Rais

They played a role but not huge in the scheme of things.
In specific engagements thier prescence was a factor, but such were their relative small numbers that anything more than a localised success was unusual. I'd be surprised if there combined presence added more than a few weeks (if that) onto the war

The Tigers were planned as an answer to but ended up as a question.

Logitically the Tigers were a pain in the butt not just mechanically but also logistically to move, either by rail or road (especially the King Tiger).

Tigers were a luxury they couldn't afford (literraly) They would have been better off building more Stugs and other SPG's to counter the Allied tank threat after 1943. Aside from minor offensives with limited goals and longterm aspirations were well behind Germany from 1943 omwards.

Regards

Andy H
How would Stugs counter IS tanks that Soviets deployed?
Assault guns (STUGs) became tank destroyers (Panzerjägers) from 1941-42, and both were used in each other's roles as well.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: "Designed To Look Deadly".

Post by Robert Rojas » 05 Oct 2018 21:52

Greetings to both citizen Jesk and the community as a whole. Howdy Jesk! Well sir, in light of your posting of Tuesday - October 02, 2018 - 10:32am, it is pretty damned obvious to old yours truly that citizen Michael Kenny has you dead to rights on the structural matter of the Soviet IS-2 Heavy Battle Tank. It might not be a terribly bad idea if you capitulated to the logic of the situation and admitted your error. As the old and battered adage goes, IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING! It's just some sobering food for thought. Humble pie anyone? Well, that's my initial two cents, pfennigs or kopecks worth on this exercise in aesthetics. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of White Russia.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :roll: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by BDV » 05 Oct 2018 22:01

Peter89 wrote:
Gilles de Rais wrote: How would Stugs counter IS tanks that Soviets deployed?
Assault guns (STUGs) became tank destroyers (Panzerjägers) from 1941-42, and both were used in each other's roles as well.
But they were incredibly limited if used for attacks /counterattacks. So they could be used as a brake but not at a stopper.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Peter89
Member
Posts: 494
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: "designed to look deadly"

Post by Peter89 » 06 Oct 2018 05:40

BDV wrote:
05 Oct 2018 22:01
Peter89 wrote:
Gilles de Rais wrote: How would Stugs counter IS tanks that Soviets deployed?
Assault guns (STUGs) became tank destroyers (Panzerjägers) from 1941-42, and both were used in each other's roles as well.
But they were incredibly limited if used for attacks /counterattacks. So they could be used as a brake but not at a stopper.
The whole Wehrmacht was a brake and not a stopper.

From 1943 onwards the war was inevitably lost for the Germans, what we are doing now is measuring loser alternatives for defense.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”