2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 1, 2014 23:49:11 GMT -5
Indeed once again you are correct. The Bazooka was really an ingenious combination of shaped charge technology and rocket technology. It provided the Infantry with something that was in their direct control that had a reasonable chance (albeit up close) to take out any German tank.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 3, 2014 15:04:32 GMT -5
Tom G answered 13, 15 and 16. That still leaves several unanswered. Give them your best guesses.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 3, 2014 16:15:57 GMT -5
18. The German High Velocity 88mm Anti tank gun could
A. Use our ammunition when necessary. B. Engage and destroy US tanks out to 2000 yards C. Be mounted on an eight ton Halftrack as a counter our Tank Destroyers D. Both A and B
B. From Wikipedia - "The 88 was powerful enough to penetrate over 84 mm of armor at a range of 2 km." It was a truly impressive weapon.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 3, 2014 16:26:40 GMT -5
20. The simple truth about Tank to Tank engagements in Western Europe was:
A. we defeated Germany entirely because we had way way more tanks than they did. B. Our tanks were inferior to German tanks in every critical way. C. Whichever side saw the enemy tank first usually was victorious D. Other then mechanical breakdown German tanks were unstoppable.
A. If you read that as we defeated German armor entirely by having more tanks. (The overall defeat of Germany was much more complex). It's true for the US, Britain and Russia that in a straight up one for one armor battle the Allies would on average lose. We won the armor battle in the end because we could replace our losses faster than the Germans could. From Wikipedia. Allied tank and SP gun production - 227,235, Axis - 52,345.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 3, 2014 16:32:32 GMT -5
21. German Armor became less and less effective as the war dragged due to:
A. Reductions in the availability of strategic alloys which weakened their armor noticeably. B. Strategic Bombing reduced production of tanks and spare parts C. Panzer Crews received less training due to fuel shortages D. Sabotage by conscripted workers E. All of the above.
E. - All of the above. One of the greatest advantages the US had was the war was being fought somewhere else. It's unimaginable that we could have hit the level of production we did if our major cities and railway system were under frequent attack. D is another interesting facet of the situation. Besides conscripted workers from occupied countries, the Germans used prisoners from the concentration camps for slave labor, usually under conditions that guaranteed they were worked to death. The logic here totally escapes me. What kind of quality control can you have when your work force is being worked to death and has every incentive to produce defective equipment.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 3, 2014 16:36:30 GMT -5
23. Though Superior in Armor and Firepower than an M4 (76mm) The Panther PZ Mk V in fact:
A. The Sherman was the better tank for its intended purpose B. The lack of qualified and well trained German tank crews eliminated any tactical advantage it had. C. Without air superiority it was incapable of defeating American Armor D. American Tank Crews absolutely preferred their tanks.
A. The key here is "intended purpose." The Sherman was designed as an exploitation weapon, which meant a priority was placed on speed and reliability, and a main gun suitable for attacking a variety of targets in the enemy rear areas. It wasn't intended to fight other tanks.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 3, 2014 20:46:18 GMT -5
Volks, you are perfect in your responses except question 20 which was something of a set up. A is a very good response and one that is hard to argue against but the trick in the phrase was the word "entirely". C is surprisingly the best answer. After all the extensive reviews of after action reports from Western Europe backed up by ballistic testing, Because the contact ranges were typically (almost entirely) inside of 1,000 meters whichever tank saw the other tank first was usually the victor. In reality the defensive, stationary tank almost always had a far greater advantage then that provided by greater firepower or thicker armor. The first tank to be seen was the first tank fired at and even if the first round missed typically the second one wasn't and since Allied tankers avoided firing on German frontal armor side hits were nearly always fatal. In the key battles of Mortain, Arracourt and others. Even when numbers were even or even slightly advantageous for the Germans our Shermans were surprisingly (even dominently) victorious even though the majority of tanks faced were Panthers. The ranges were close which negated most of the Panthers edge, and the US crews and leadership won out. Like a gunfight in an elevator, even a 38 special can defeat a 44 magnum as dead is dead and it typically isn't measured n degrees.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 7, 2014 16:11:47 GMT -5
I went a head and answered the few remaining quiz questiond. Go ahead and step through the quiz along with the notes and see if it makes sense. Hopefully the quiz was entertaining and informative.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 7, 2014 19:48:40 GMT -5
A curious factoid, which I can't substantiate because I read it a while ago. The British 17pdr Sherman was called the "Firefly", because (supposedly) the breech of the gun tended to leak a little flame when fired.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 8, 2014 11:32:16 GMT -5
The firefly was an absolute expedient adaptation by the British to fill a need they recognized for a potent tank killing gun that could mount in a tank turret. the US Army failed to anticipate the need. They used the same 76mm (3inch naval gun) we used in our M10 tank destroyer and ordinance on their wn adapted to the Sherman turret but the British elongated the barrel another 18 inches and created a round that used way way more propellant. this produced a wickedly high velocity round that could actually out penetrate the infamous German 88 at range but produced such a massive muzzle flash that it completely obscured the round as it went down range. A first round hit was critical as the enemy absolutely had no trouble seeing where the round came from and there was no way to adjust visually. Modern tanks and self propelled guns have a fume evacuator in a housing on the outside of the main gun that reduces the amount of heat and fumes that inevitably return to the turret. (It looks like a fatter section of outer tube usually about 18inches long). The Firefly didn't have one so odds are there were occassional backblasts. When firing the firefly kept hatches open throughout
By the time we entered the continent after D-Day the British Squadrons made a point to have one or even two Fireflys in each of their troops so one or two out of five of their tanks would be Fireflys. Before the breakout the British were fighting over more open ground then the US and confronted more tanks and more German Heavies then we did. Due to the potential for encounters at greater ranges their tank to tank engagements were decidedly lopsided and without the Firefly they would have had no chance.
I believe the Firefly label derived from the extreme muzzle flash and heat generated from this main gun.
|
|