Tontoman Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Cut from TANKBOOKS.COM (pretty good reading) You could use this as a Darwin award. <<Now, the first tank we had, behind the driver and the assistant driver there was a cubbyhole for shells for the 75-millimeter gun. But every time you wanted one of them, you’d skin your knuckles trying to get them out of there, so we never used it. Instead we would pile the extra ammunition on the turret floor.>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Now, the first tank we had, behind the driver and the assistant driver there was a cubbyhole for shells for the 75-millimeter gun. But every time you wanted one of them, you’d skin your knuckles trying to get them out of there, so we never used it. Instead we would pile the extra ammunition on the turret floor ------------------ russellmz, Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ. "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Nice link Tontoman, thanks. ------------------ "'S muladach ma theid ar sgaoileadh..." -Duncan Ban Macintyre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob d Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 My uncle was a tank commander with the Southern Alberta Tank Regiment in WWII. (did I get that right? I'm sure about the Southern Alberta but not the tank regiment part) Anyway, he said that his crew over loaded the tank with ammunition every time they resupplied. They'd fill the storage areas, and cover the floor of the turret as well. He said this was the only way to avoid running out of ammunition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Hey, if a German panzer hit them, they were screwed anyway! Better to have as much ammo as possible, ya know? My Dad: You can never have too much of four things, son: Pussy, ammo, cover, and booze. He's so much fun to talk to. ------------------ Honor, Duty, Courage. Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior... ------------------------ "If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tontoman Posted January 26, 2001 Author Share Posted January 26, 2001 That's weird. How did my cut text end up in Russellmz's post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 /me was wondering that same thing m8... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by Tontoman: That's weird. How did my cut text end up in Russellmz's post? Because you blocked off your quote using <>. UBB uses those as identifiers for commands. Since it couldn't understand the command, it just showed the brackets. Or somefink. ------------------ Ethan ----------- "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by rob d: My uncle was a tank commander with the Southern Alberta Tank Regiment in WWII. (did I get that right? I'm sure about the Southern Alberta but not the tank regiment part) I think they were the Recce Rgt of 4th Cdn Armoured Division. IIRC about 20 tanks of the South Albertas were involved in the fight at St. Lambert sur Dives in which Major Curry got his VC. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu: Because you blocked off your quote using <>. UBB uses those as identifiers for commands. Since it couldn't understand the command, it just showed the brackets. Or somefink. yeah, i just hit edit yr message, copied, and pasted as a public service... ------------------ russellmz, Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ. "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by rob d: My uncle was a tank commander with the Southern Alberta Tank Regiment in WWII. (did I get that right? I'm sure about the Southern Alberta but not the tank regiment part) South Alberta Regiment. SAR. Does he have an email address? Does he mind talking to people interested in Canadian WW II history? The history of the SAR was recently done up in a beautiful hardcover book by Donald Graves. I wonder if your uncle is mentioned in it? It's called South Albertas At War. The SAR actually started as infantry and converted to tanks midway through the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: I think they were the Recce Rgt of 4th Cdn Armoured Division. This is correct. But they were equipped and employed as a standard armoured battalion, even though they were officially "recce". Correct also about Currie, who commanded a squadron - at St. Lambert there was also a company of Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 So the question is, was the Sherman prone to "brew up" because of design or because how the crews would store stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Well, I know Shermans were fueled with gasoline instead of diesel so that's one reason they were so flammable. I think another reason was probably that the Germans were hitting them with more powerful guns so there was a greater chance for something to explode or catch fire. Someone else can probably comment on the damage aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by StellarRat: Well, I know Shermans were fueled with gasoline instead of diesel so that's one reason they were so flammable. Not all were - in North Africa and Italy 4th Armoured Brigade had Diesel Shermans, and the crews were less than impressed when they were given gasoline driven ones for the invasion. Can someone please post the full reference for the South Alberta book. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 The whole Diesel/Gasoline problem is pretty interesting I think. There were several models of M4 that were fueled with diesel, but the US didn't use them. Our allies did, some, however. These tanks were ultimately quite successful and performed well, and had the obvious benefit of not toting around hundreds of gallons of highly-flammable gasoline. The US never used them because we didn't want the added logistical problem of mixing gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles in the field; that, and early problems with effective power to weight ratios for diesel engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilltopper Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 "The US never used them because we didn't want the added logistical problem of mixing gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles in the field. . ." Hmm...that's because the logistical people didn't want to be burdened with it 'cause they weren't the one's getting their asses cooked in those Sherman heaps anyway! Sounds like a typical corporate clone concept to me! I think it was criminal putting our guys in those tanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Aside from the advantage when getting shelled (not sure if it is really THAT much safer) the biggest advantages diesels have are 1)fuel efficiency and 2)torque. They also don't heat up nearly as much in industrial type applications. Never seem to be working as hard and everything else being equal they last much, much longer under heavy load. Pretty much all heavy construction/farm/highway hauling equipment are diesels for those reasons. The mileage of US tanks after the war doubled when they adopted diesels and AFAIK engine reliability went way up too. No idea why no one but the Russians went diesel during the war. Once you run a heavy machine on diesel you never want to go back to gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts