Jump to content

What do you suppose took out this Jackson?


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Pete Wenman said:

That's not a M-36

Ah, I thought it looked kinda funny, but didn't slow down enough to figure out why. M18 right? What's that thing on the back of the turret pointing up at the sky? Not an MG I don't think. Looks to me like a small recoilless rifle, but maybe just some random post-explosion junk.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to say what bulletpoint pointed out. You see metal turned up and out on the left side. Id guess either the answer above is correct or something shot a shell or shaped charge into its left side and it caused a large explosion..

 

Ill tell you for sure what the GIs are saying in back 

"88s fellas right here see what they do?"

"Ah shove it joe, when is ordinance picking up this crap so we can get some chow and look for some lonely frauleins?"

Edited by Sublime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hellcat used a M4 Sherman petrol radial engine (not diesel like M10) and its armor barely even stopped mg rounds. So set it on fire one way or another and eventually the stowed rounds will cook off. Hellcat didn't use Sherman 'wet' stowage, did it? I honestly don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question the artillery hypothesis because the adjacent trees show no signs of it. Even if you suppose that a hit on the left side of the vehicle broke the running gear on that side causing the TD to swerve violently to the left before it stopped (check out the vehicle trace in the snow), that still puts it too close to the trees for them to show no sign, I would think.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Ah, I thought it looked kinda funny, but didn't slow down enough to figure out why. M18 right? What's that thing on the back of the turret pointing up at the sky? Not an MG I don't think. Looks to me like a small recoilless rifle, but maybe just some random post-explosion junk.

Michael

Looks like a M1919 .30 machine gun, larger image here: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/53/03/68/530368219c5449d8fcfbe3517a7f98b6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Douglas Ruddd said:

Yeah, I suppose. The jacket for the barrel just looked a little big. Interesting improvisation. Looks like they took a standard infantry setup, tripod and all, and welded it onto the turret.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sure if we had thousands more pictures or if cameras were as plentiful and good quality then as now we.d see thousands of really interesting add ons from crews to their tanks. Im sure from idiotic to brilliant that never got adopted widespread, and im sure some were even for flair (tank girls sherman got those umbrellas somewhere!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that we were misinformed that this is a Jackson, my invisible "Stonewall" option has gone out of the window, if that isn't too much of a mixed metaphor. So being a Limey I am now going for the crew suffering from a surfeit of Brussel/Bruxelles sprouts. And their farts causing an implosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

So being a Limey I am now going for the crew suffering from a surfeit of Brussel/Bruxelles sprouts. And their farts causing an implosion.

A reasonable supposition. However, the accumulated gas would require some means of ignition, so I propose that the crew had recently liberated a German cache of cigars and when one of the crewmen tried to light up, the inevitable transpired.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

A reasonable supposition. However, the accumulated gas would require some means of ignition, so I propose that the crew had recently liberated a German cache of cigars and when one of the crewmen tried to light up, the inevitable transpired.

Michael

Hahaha... Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

user1000,

Clearly, the destruction of the M18 and the command halftrack is directly traceable to failure  to follow the clear 100 yard interval distances decreed by the sign in the second pic at the link Wicky so kindly provided. Pic four in that series shows a pair of M8s doing the exact same stupid thing.

http://histomil.com/viewtopic.php?t=9427&start=230

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends if it's a type emplaced below ground (difficult to do if ground is frozen when laid) or a type laid above ground (more easily spotted).  Fuses and mines may fail to detonate if moisture enters mechanisms.

Effectiveness in snow - problem activating fuses in soft snow / soft ground (thaw) conditions without a firm base and even if activated the snow can dampen resulting explosion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...