The Continued Reading from the Book of Armaments, North Africa Equipment Reports, Pt2.
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 10. 2020
- Continuing from the original video: I dig into the archives and read out commentary from fact-finding tours by officers from the US who went to North Africa to see how the equipment they were sending overseas was performing. Added to, of course, by my unique commentary. Turns out this was longer than I thought, so I've split it in two, this is the second part and has info from May/July 1943.
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Improved-Computer-And-Scout Car Fund:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal paypal.me/thechieftainshat
Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the_chi...
Can I just say, that French worker who sabotaged the shells to make sure they are duds was a damn good lad. It takes balls to do that day in day out, day after day. I hope he wasn't cought and lived to see liberation.
Even more ballsy to put a note in the shell that could have been found by nazi QC.
I prefer the original Book of Armaments:
"Lobeth thou thy Holy Handgrenade of Antioch towards thy foe who, beeing naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." - The Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verse 21
I prefer the Old testament Book of Armaments: "Do unto others, and then run like hell!"
@John Smith "Ot's a mean bunny rabbit ..."
.
The "shall snuff it" part always makes me chuckle.
@@richardm3023 “Do unto others, FIRST!” Jimmy Hoffa.
Writing home for stuff was a old tradition.
The older episode I read about was from a British officer, asking his wife to be so kind to find at Harrod's a good map of Sebastopol with the fortifications and send it to him in Crimea.
In the archeological excavations of the Roman Fort at Vindolanda they found letters home asking for socks, underwear and hunting nets for birds.
@@nowthenzen I read about some roman dudes asking his parents for money for a cart for all his comrades have one. And some vases for milk.
All be seated. The reverend Chieftain shall now read from the book of armaments; millimeters 75 through to 105...
Now there is a religion even I as an atheist could get behind...
All hail the supreme firepower!
burn the incense (cordite) and let the consecrated organ bless this congregation with its joyous tune (Dushka firing in the backgrund). Amen.
All praise the high explosive
Can I convert
Slightly off topic, it was soldiers writing home to their wives, sisters and mothers about their issue equipment and the women's reaction to the info that gave Denning the basis for his quality system that subsequently he taught to the Japanese. When you write your mother that the rifle from the factory she works in nearly got you killed, you would be AMAZED how quickly things will get fixed.
Bless that Frenchman who put the note in the shell, brave man.
The guy who poked around a dud shell is pretty brave too!
@@rootbeerpoptart No, just damned dumb
@@colbeausabre8842 EOD and Intelligence prefer the term "professional." Geoff Who met a few of both.
That was not uncommon. Which is what the Germans got for using slave labor to manufacture their armaments. The US & UK - used women - whose sons, husbands, fathers and boy friends might be using that ordnance and they did everything in their power to make it right.
.
This is one of those acts where someone may say "In the end, did it make any difference?"... and I'm sure if you asked the folks that found that note, and didn't die or lose friends ( because it failed to burst) the answer would be "Absolutely".
''Sir! Radar contact, enemy Bombers!
''SCRAMBLE OUR BOMBERS!
''Sir, with all due respect, you do mean Fighter's right?
''I KNOW WHAT I SAID!
in all fairness the Germans had these too, and rockets that were mounted under the wings. if you play war thunder, a lot of the "ground attack" rockets you use on German planes in ground battles were actually developed for air-to-air work. the idea was you fling them toward an enemy bomber box, and if you hit, well that's good, but in reality the goal is for the pilots to go "oh *BLEEP* that's a rocket!" and turn...IE you're trying to break up the defensive formation to make your job easier.
Don't sass me son, I know what I'm about.
@@sawyerawr5783 Not quite the same. German stuff was focused on being fired from behind, below, or even head-on. Not above. If you are already above the bomber formation, just dive on them.
@@sawyerawr5783 also 500 pound bomb was light bomb able to be carried by Typhoon or Spitfire, and proxy fuse would just ment, that fighters drop bombs to bomber formation for
A: break formation
B: hope for best and damage some of them
it was not that bombers would bomb bombers
its very important that Axis have air supremancy in NA atlest in 41-41
"anti-bomber-bombers scrambled but radar contacts show enemy anti-bomber-bomber-bombers entering contested airspace. please advise."
"Once a tank is hit with large caliber, it is gone."
*Laughs in T92 HMC*
I love how the allies are as much or more impressed with the ability to ship a narrow track (minus "bogeys") Tiger tank than anything else about it.
Amateurs' talk tactics, pros talk logistics. Geoff Who was a pro, at a very low level.
Doesn't matter how awesome the tank is, if you can't get it to where it's needed.
See also the Tiger 2.
@@GCJT1949 That why Nic says one the best thing's about the M4 Sherman tank is the lifting points to enable fast crane loading onto ships for ocean crossings as this pre ro-ro ship types capable of ocean travel.
"And lo, did the Chieftain come into his people, and there was much rejoicing."
- The Book of Armaments, 2:1
All praises to the Omnisiah!
" Ye come they lord victory & conquest , ye saw people come to they Chieftain lord ,Praise they Lord & ask for chieftains blessing "
Surah of Conquest :1
"Read forward a bit Brother Maynard"
Sorry for the later reply, but when they’re discussing loosing the rear sights on the M1 rifles, they’re discussing an issue with the sight pinion nut on the elevation knob. The original design had a nut flush with the elevation knob, but it was found that it would work itself loose under consistent firing, and fall off, which meant bye-bye elevation knob, and likely your entire assembly. The immediate solution was to redesign the nut with a protruding bar that the soldier could use to quickly tighten the knob down as needed, called a “lock bar”. From what I understand, the first versions, the Type I lock bars still would come loose too easily and still fall out. This is what I think this ordnance report is discussing. A redesigned lock bar (Type II) was introduced in December 1942, but I’m not sure how many of those made it to North Africa by the time of this report.
Shows how the Army works.
Company grade officers ask for rifle sights.
Field grade officers ask for USB keyboards.
Probably to type up their own ARCOM recommendations.
No matter how many times I see the shell/munition tube, It always give me a slight chuckle
Googly eyes are almost always worth a chuckle. Put 'em on an ammo tube and slap a Stetson on top and it's a guarantee.
That's apparently an MGM-51 Shillelagh missile, as used by the M-551 Sheridan and M-60A2.
The shillelagh is also the classic Irish club/walking stick.
So it is a perfect departure gift for an Irish cavalry/tank officer.
2:00 I sent a message to my GF and Mom to send TP, and to 'modify' Listerine for 'GI entertainment' during the first Gulf ARTEP. After 3 months of MRE's, I begged for Spagetti-O's - Mom sent a case. For Bosnia, the wife sent Jolly Ranchers (good sugar when you're on patrol) and good Hopps oil to clean the weapons - it was invaluable.
Don't forget the AA's.
I sent some boxes of Mac & Cheese to Bosnia for a pal of mine on the same thought.
Ha! The weirdest thing I wrote home for was radiator stop-leak for our forklift.
There's a story about the first nuke sub, the USS Nautilus, before a trip under the Artic Circle stopping in Seattle, sending a bunch of sailors out in civvies to to buy stop-leak to fix a leaking condenser.
www.historylink.org/File/3739
A note on 20mm nose fuzes for WWII HE ammo: Originally the US Navy had its own fuzes and bought these projectile independent of the US Army, The Navy fuzes were somewhat more "safe" in that you had to give a very sharp jolt to the fuze to set it off, though the metal plate needed to do this was only about 0.125" thick at projectile impact velocities after firing. The cost to do this was finally considered excessive and the Navy in the middle of WWII switched to using US Army 20mm HE shells. These had fuzes that the US Navy considered less safe in that it was possible, if dropped from a height aboard ship, to set off one of these fuzes -- something not considered in the Army spec because there was no such heights to worry about -- but with warning to the ship crew, this seems to have been adequate to keep this from being a problem aboard ship. Note that all of these fuzes are different from most other nose fuzes in that they have no post-firing safety interlocks to reset and no firing pins. They simply have the tip of the nose suddenly move downward into the very sensitive detonator on impact, in the Navy design the motion caused a shockwave in an air gap just above the detonator to set off the fuze, which was not really possible with a regular nose impact prior to firing, while the Army design had the nose tip itself fold downward into the detonator (which is why it was not quite as safe if dropped from a height). Even the US Navy 1.1" AA gun nose fuze (replaced by the 20mm rapidly during WWII) had a tiny set of interlocks and a firing pin just like the larger fuzes did, so 20mm HE ammo in the US was rather atypical as to fuze design...
The intermediate weapon between the grenade and 60mm mortar materialized in the late Fifties as the 40mm Grenade Launcher M79. My history teacher my senior in high school had carried one in Vietnam as a Bloop Gunner en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher
Fair one.
Rifle grenades had been common since WWI
3:22 Ma deuce completely satisfactory, enough said. I love that.
It took almost 100 years for someone to figure out an improvement to the Ma Deuce.
The M2A1 has been modified so you no longer need to adjust headspace and timing, since modern tooling is capable of holding those tolerances.
Something I'm really curious about is the initial German reaction to M4, and what they thought about US armour by the end of the african campaign
I would like to hear that as well.
I do know that at least one report from the Boccage praise them, ironically one of their biggest advantage supposedly being the height, which allowed the crew to see over the hedge walls.
Maybe 'Military History Visualised' has a source on it?
@@Palora01 yeah height is either a positive, a negative or irrelevant depending on the situation and terrain.
I know Hans von Luck was complimentary of the M3 Medium in British use, and I think he went as far as describing it as superior to any German tank at the time.
@@martinkirk3810 You mean the M4? I'm sceptical at the germans having liked the M3 Lee/Grant much
"Please continue to advise TD crews that they are NOT tanks and should not be playing cowboy on my battlefield!"
FWIW: As a former USCG aircrewman {HU-25A/B/C and HC-130H}, I recall reading the word _"practicable"_ *numerous times* in flight manuals.
I love the quotes that everything burns/everyone's tanks burn after sufficient numbers of hits.
And that if a large enough caliber shell hits a tank, its just gone.
All 3 are blunt and totally honest.
The tanks may be different but you just need a larger hammer.
You hit a Sherman with a 105mm from a field gun and its going to be scrap.
You hit a Tiger with a 152mm or a 155mm gun and it will also be scrap.
I love these style uploads. Keep it up!
Just a note from my memory …… worked with many combat veterans some from WW2 …… remember being told the Margarine they received in the field was felt to be unfit for consumption BUT was great for waterproofing their boots . Just a note .
And thus we have our word of the day, practicable.
these types of reports are fascinating! Thanks Nick!
Awesome information bursts. First class video. Thanks Nick
I'm getting hooked on these reading sessions. Thanks Chieftain.
Thanks for this, it's absolutely fascinating stuff.
Thank you Brother Maynard
Just want to echo my comment on the last video - very much enjoyed/appreciated this video and the info therein. That might be b/c I'm a historian and this is close to the type of reading material I choose for leisure on occasion :-) Although WW2 history was/is not my specialized field of study, I've had a passion for researching and exploring it since my high school years and so I'm eating this up. Thanks again.
Wonderful video, one of the best.
I’ve enjoyed these. Thx!!!
I thought this was interesting myself Chief. Gleaning for little factoids in records is interesting.
Sat through both sessions ..very interesting.
I first skipped those vids only to watch them a little later.
Worth the time.
Hearing about what the blokes in the army thought of their equipment is quite illuminating.
Wouldn't terribly mind getting something similar about the experiences in the european and pacific theatre as well.
Fascinating window into the past. really enjoy your web site.
The request for extra AP for aircraft probably coincided with encountering Me-109E7s or Fs, which had more armor around critical equipment than earlier models. Or possibly the introduction of the Gs, which added a bit more, if the request is from 1943. (I missed any mention of date.)
i believe he mentions 1943 in the first part (ie the previous video)
The more I learn for you the more I realize I know nothing about how war is fought. There is way more then just pulling a trigger. EDIT-TED
The British finally got those miniature aerial bombs, demonstrated with aplomb by Little Nellie in the hands of James Bond
@The_Chieftain: the Japanese tried to bomb bombers with something like a modern cluster bomb. Didn't quite work too well but they found these bombs useful for ground attack
Yep, that was a very strange thing.
This is all pretty cool. I enjoy hearing what the troops, commanders, QM, and Ordnance has to say about their equipment. It always puts paid to mere stats.
Hello Chieftain, it is interesting that this report clearly mentions U.S. Army use of the M-4A2, that these vehicles “were arriving in theater”, whereas most literature on the subject states that at least with the U.S. Army at the time, the M-4A2 was used for stateside training purposes as well of course by the USMC, in whose service it remained the standard medium tank ‘til 1945, only to be supplemented by M-4A3s late in the Pacific War. Hunnicutt does say in “Sherman” that what relatively few M-4A2s the Army used at the time in North Africa were received from British stocks since we had lost so many of the Continental powered M-4’s and M-4A1’s at Kasserine Pass etc... It begs the question why the U.S. Army, given the glowing reports about the GM diesel’s reliability, fire-proofness (is that even a word?) and fuel efficiency, decided in the end to stick with more flammable and less efficient gasoline powered vehicles like the M-4, M-4A1 and later M-4A3? The Marines, British and other Commonwealth forces, Free French, Poles and Soviets all used large numbers of M-4A2s (it was the second most common Sherman in British and Commonwealth service after the somewhat bizarrely powered M-4A4), and they seem to have been well liked by their crews. I also find it interesting that there is no mention of the M-3 Lee series (never mind, the Lee is mentioned in the first half of your report, which I watched second to this, go figure).
As for artillery (I am more an arty guy really), you may want to clarify that the 155mm M-1 mentioned in the report was the M-1 or M-1A1 (post war these were re-designated as the 155mm M-59 gun) “Long Tom” gun (or “rifle” in period U.S. parlance) and NOT the 155mm M-1 or M-1A1 field howitzer, later re-designated the M-114 and M-114A1. These latter weapons would generally not see action until mid-1944 in North Western Europe and in the later Italian campaign. The U.S.155mm M-1917A4 and M-1918 field howitzers (these were both based on the French “Canon de 155 court mle. 1917 Schneider” aka. C-17S), were still good weapons if a bit long in the tooth. They were rugged and reliable enough to soldier on through the early part of the Italian campaign. As for the 8 inch (203mm) howitzer M-1 (later re-designated as the M-115), they would not reach action until August of 1943 in Italy, and the monstrous 240mm M-1 howitzer would appear around the same time if even a little later. As for the complaint that the U.S. artillery needed more range in North Africa, I find this to be somewhat odd given that the Germans’ longest ranged weapon in North Africa was the 17cm K-18 in Mörser Lafette, of which the Germans may have had a grand total of four to eight guns in all of Panzer Armée Afrika. I just guess it goes to show that a very small quantity of really powerful artillery pieces can still cause a lot of trouble. The companion 21cm Mörser 18 was also in service in small quantities: it fired a potent shell but it’s maximum range was only 18 klicks. The above referenced U.S. 155mm M-1 gun (Long Tom) had a maximum range that was almost as long as that of the 17cm K-18 (23.7 kms vs. 29 and some change), and the U.S. had more of them. The Germans also used some captured French 155mm canon de 155 long GPFT (Grande Puissance Filloux Touzzard) guns, which were also very good, just not quite as long ranged (20 klicks max.). The Italians’ superb 149mm Cannone da 149/40 modello 1935 was also a rare bird; by early 1943 the Italians may have had as few as 8 to 12 of these weapons in North Africa. It had an identical maximum range to the “Long Tom”. The German 10cm (actually 105mm) sK-18 field gun (the companion piece to the ubiquitous 15cm sFH-18 field howitzer) was capable of firing a shell 19 kms, but the complaint against it was its relatively light shell.
U.S. artillery wanting more range in North Africa possibly had more to do with wanting to be further back away from the rapidly shifting lines of combat contact
Blue Boats, indeed that was no doubt a major factor, they probably wanted more “standoff” capability to put it in air power terms. The only U.S. gun with the capability of some of the German long range guns like the 17cm K-18 or 24cm K-3 (which was never used in NA) was the 8 inch (203mm) M-1 gun, which was introduced after the North African campaign.
Greetings from the great state of Alabama, I commented to you on a practice round I recently came across. It's for a pack howitzer! I'm very surprised, found a video on it here on YT. Just so happened, I had in my possession,a storage tube for a 3 inch rocket that it fit perfectly! !
Fair enough. Thanks for the update!
Enjoyed this
Enjoyed. More please.
On bombs for defending a bomber, the Brits operated at night, the Luftwaffe night fighters had 20mm cannon mounted at an angle and shot into the bomber from below and slightly behind. The Nazis also had a detector for British "tail waring radars" that would bring them up from below in the perfect position. Geoff Whose youth was wasted on WW2 technology research.
Schraege Musik.
There is evidence out there of British bombers bring hit by bombs dropped by higher flying aircraft in the bomber stream.
I hope no one says "The Brits should have had downward firing guns on their bombers". The Lancaster was fitted with a dorsal turret, but as this was aimed using a periscope it was found to be less than useful. The tuurent was replaced by the HS2 radome on many Lancasters. However on many Lancasters a machine gun was refitted to give some degree of protection from attacks from below.
@@markwilliams2620 Jazz! Geoff Who has been around.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 The quad .303s in the tail turret, loaded with tracer and incendiaries to blind/distract attackers were replaced with twin .50s with radar. I don't know if they ever scored a kill, or counter kill? Geoff Who wondered about the effectiveness.
@@GCJT1949 yes but their zone of effectiveness, ie what they could aim at, still left a large area where a German could sit in safety. They probably did a bit of damage, but how much is anyone's guess.
Interesting that the need for an auxiliary power unit to save fuel and reduce wear on engines was recognized so early, and was still a 'product improvement' when finally installed on the M-1 Abrams 45 years later.
My guess is that after WW2, engines became so reliable that engine wear when idling or near-idling was negligible. And fuel...well, just look at american cars from the era and you should be able to guess the general attitude towards fuel economy...
It may only have become an issue with the M1s turbine simply sucking that much juice when idling.
@@Bird_Dog00 Turbines with Brayton cycle tend to be very thirsty when operating off design, the inefficient compression (compared to piston) means at low speed the inefficiency draws a lot more power than the actual useful power.
That Type 97 model ain't gonna build itself.
It would be interesting if documents such as these are available from other theaters, specifically the Pacific. It would be interesting to read/hear what some of the contemporaneous thoughts were of the officers and men who employed various equipment, specifically armored vehicles in the various locations.
Greetings from Northern Ireland! 👍
Greetings from armagh
Roughly 48:00, Yes the M1 Garand is a beautiful rifle. I got a service-grade one through the CMP and it's a blast. I thought it would kick more, but it's actually fairly soft.
Oh yeah! I got one that way as well, super easy to do, my service grade is an incredibly nice rifle and an absolute blast to shoot. I'm with you, it's surprisingly soft shooting.
Just mind the ammo you run through it, as modern .30-06 is running higher pressure than milsurp.
There is a replacement gas plug out there that is self-adjusting.
I've been shooting Privi Partizan's M1 Garand load and Garand specific reloads made by competent friend that's loaded for years.
@@jeffo3141 cool that ppu makes a Garand specific load, I didn't know that!
I just don't want anyone new to having a Garand beating up their rifle with hunting ammo because they don't know it's loaded hotter than milsurp (about 200fps faster, which is a major change!)
With the lead in music, I half expected to see a futuristic cityscape with flying cars. 😁
The 5th Air Force in the Pacific had a lot of luck with parachute fragmentation bombs used when strafing. "The parafrag bomb was invented by Kenney in the 1920s..."
And there's an excellent sort of side chat about those parafrags in one episode of James Eeling's Principles of War Battle of the Bismark Sea series.
Great how all these different series are bringing to light these aspects of the war.
4 min in I heard "Germans have a good grenade, fired from a lawn chair."
And here I thought war was hell....lol
Had to go back and listen to it again.
I like the need for a recon battalion just thrown in there between improved boots and shorter pants.
I've actually found stuff like a lot when reading old documentation, it was definitely written in a more off-the-cuff, train-of-thought style than we learn today. I guess if you're pounding away on a typewriter its a pain to go back and insert the important bits you momentarily forgot earlier.
I suspect the purpose of attaching towed AT guns to a tank coy would be to secure the LD and provide overwatch AT fire without needing to keep a troop in reserve to do it. Given the difficulty of shooting on the move at the time, perhaps coupled to difficulty seeing out of the tanks well enough to spot enemy tanks or AT guns at long range, having a section of low profile, stationary, spotting-scope equipped AT guns in overwatch could provide cover by fire for advancing (or retreating) tanks.
It also makes me think that perhaps the tank coys were too small if they were having trouble providing overwatch internally.
I'm sorry, "LD" ??
@@billd.iniowa2263 LD - "Line of Departure" a line or position on a map from which an attack is supposed to jump off at H Hour. You'll often see it as LD-LC "Line of Departure - Line of Contact" the LD is the position you currently occupy
@@colbeausabre8842 Oh of course, now I get it. Thanx so much. :-)
Chieftain has been busy, shelf looks like it has been populated by more kits.
LOL just noticed googly eyes on missile tube.
Development on a 90mm gun TD started before M10 even saw combat. A 90mm gun TO was tested in M10 turret October 1942.
Hah! The keyboards thing reminds me of some of my time in Afghanistan.
I was working on the supply depot on Camp Bastion. I remember asking one of the IT guys if he knew of anywhere we could get some replacement boards (basically all of ours were worn out, horrible, sandy, gritty feeling things which first came with the old pentium 4 desktops we had on the depot). I was a private and this guy was a major (iirc). He laughed, but decided to check mine anyway after I insisted it was truly awful.
Seconds later, he picks up the phone in the office and calls his guy (where he was). He was truly aghast at what I had and decided, on the spot, that we needed new boards.
He got us what I think are the best boards I have ever used. What were they?
Probably the cheapest, shittyest things that Cherry has ever made. And good god were there amazing!
A delight!
The submarine base at Lorient was repeatedly bombed by B26 Maurader aircraft based in Kent but they did little more than scratch the paint. There is an an industrial estate and a tourist location within concrete structure which is too difficult to demolish.
There he is, taunting me with his VKB stick. I'll buy one someday...
Hello and thanks for your Work, awesome Insights.
I would like to ask if you, maybe some day, could give us some Information or insight about reconnaissance, mainly motorized and armored reconnaissance.
I remember you like the M3 Scout Car as much as i do. But how did they used it.
And later the M3/5 Stuart. Or the M24 Chaffee.
It is common to read that the Stuart for example was used for reconnaissance because he was obsolete otherwise.
I'm always bewildered about this.
I mean reconnaissance is an crucial part of planning and operating, i can't believe that it is just "giv'em da ol' crab".
Thanks for your awesome Work, very entertaining AND informative, a rare combination these days. 👍
Encore! More! More!!
Good content
would like to see more of these fine readings please?
48:05 - "I do want to get a Garand at some point"
I would suggest getting one from the CMP relatively soon before the lend-lease returns fully dry up. You have to jump through a few hoops to be eligible to order one, but you'll save yourself about $500. They also usually give big discounts on ammo if you order it with your Garand.
I was once out shooting and ran into a guy with a Garand who let me borrow it for a shot. Nice rifle. I'd be very curious how the rear sight was coming off.
CMP for the win! Since Chieftain is in military service, the process is smoother - fewer steps.
@@kemarisite too bad we in different parts of the country.
It's also $850 or so I don't have to spare.
@@TheChieftainsHatch worth saving up for.
With respect to merch: my absolute favorite design I've seen so far is the 'that vehicle offends me; remove it' (with a prius :p). I almost bought one. The problem is, I have no use for a shirt without a front pocket. I never wear hoodies. I'd be tempted to get a mug, but idk what those are priced at (and if it's $20, forget it). I think a magnetic bumper sticker (think: Giant fridge magnet) would be hilarious. Or a window stencil (something I could apply to the window either on the inside or outside -- like the family stencils you see with a wife and kids on minivans).
@48:05
That is a reference to the early Flush Nut Rear sights, as used on Springfield Armory production M1 Rifles from the beginning of production to February 1942 and Winchester from the beginning of production to October 1942.
To fix this problem, the Ordnance introduced the "Type 1" "Short Pinion" Lockbar Sight. This was used at Springfield Armory from February 1942 to November 1942 and at Winchester from October 1942 to February 1943. However, the "Type 1" Lockbar still did not fully solve the problem.
It was replaced by the "Type 2" "Long Pinion" Lockbar Sight. This was used at Springfield Armory from December 1942 to June 1944 and at Winchester from December 1942 to July 1945. This mostly solved the issue. Though it would be again replaced after the war by the T105 Rear Sight starting in the 1950s.
The U.S. M29 Cluster type Bomb, was the U.S. copy of the German “butterfly” bomb.Air to air bombing, I.e. fighter flying above a hostile bomber formation was a concept whose time never really arose. Much too many variables on aim, altitude, etc. precluded anything but a random (cough, cough, freak) success.
re: "combat jacket" vs "field jacket"; in the parlance of the time the'comba t jacket" was likely the "Jacket, Combat, Winter, for Armored Troops", aka the famous "tanker's jacket". "Field Jacket" at that time referred to the M1941 (aka "Parsons jacket") which was the standard for all US Army personnel since 1938 - 41 time period. Not sure about the butterfly bomb, but the USAAF did deploy the parafrag bomb which was highly regarded in the Pacific for attacks on airfields.
31:23 McDonald’s welcomes you xD
45:04 it’s the little things that count
Have you found a T-72 tanker to do a switchology video on the T-72M1 yet?
Interesting detail on the M4A2 at 35:30, I knew the US army did use them occasionally in combat, but I thought for some reason that was only in Italy, It appears they saw combat, and were liked, in North Africa as well.
NOTE: The complaint about new equipment not having documentation, spares, and troubleshooting/maintenance equipment is MUCH more important when electronic equipment is introduced, since it is much harder to figure out how to use it without destroying it when you merely turn it on improperly or having it be a safety risk. Radars, for example, ARE microwave ovens and have to be treated as such when used, as getting in the way of the radar beam, even the weaker off-axis sidelobes, can be an extreme hazard. and even fatal in cases with the higher-power types. You do not even want to get near one, to say nothing of using it, if you do not know how to operate it or maintain it!
I think the AT guns for Tank Battalions is a imitation of perceived German tactics.
If the Americans had known about the mobile 88mm gun being used in 1940 France instead od 1943...
The Chieftan makes this point sort of in the German armor doctrine video (or maybe invasion of France videos).
Yes. It is really interesting to hear things directly from participants as opposed to them being filtered by a Historian. A few thoughts I had:
- "Writing Home" is a time honored tradition by American Troops - who also just bought things themselves when they could. In Vietnam some of the first snipers bought hunting rifles from the PX and there was at least one Ontos crew that - used to souping up their cars in civilian life - bought parts from Speed Shops in the United States, had them mailed to themselves in Vietnam and used to modify the engines on their vehicles.
- Bombing aircraft with bombs - yes - there were some fighters built with mini bomb bays for this purpose but this never worked.
- The thing with the hedge hog - was - that as they passed over the U-Boat, they would lose sonar contact with it when it was right below them. The Germans knew that and could change course when they got within the Sonar's "cone of silence". For the Hedge Hogs the escorts knew exactly how far in front of the ship it would land - so as they approached the U-Boat - while they were still in sonar contact with it - they could launch the Hedge Hogs accurately onto the U-Boat's position. Another advantage of the Hedge Hog's contact fuse - was that if they didn't hit it - it didn't explode. Depth charges, since they always exploded at their set depth would always create a large area of disrupted water that sonar could not penetrate, causing the escort's sonar to have difficulty in re-acquiring their target.
- Grappling Hooks - you can see in the movie _The Longest Day_ - how the Rangers had special Grappling Hooks that could be shot upward trailing a rope, to hook onto something above the cliffs and let them climb that rope. So there was a specific device created to do this - though it was more about climbing than dragging back the German Barbed Wire.
.
The bombs to drop on enemy bomber formations was actually an older concept at least to 1930's. The original design for F4U Corsair included small bombay for bombs to drop in this manner and the Luftwaffle also dropped bombs against Allied bombers during the war.
Are there similar reports, perhaps from defence attaches, available from the eastern Front? Would love to see the feedback the Soviets gave from their own experiences.
Re: Bombs to down bombers. German fighters (as detailed in Heinz Knocke's memoirs) managed to make a successful anti-bomber bomb tactic by dropping timed-fuse ordnance into B-17 formations.
He got the Liberty Bell of the 93rd Bomb Group on it return from Wilhelmshaven on 22 March 1943 whilst flying a Bf-109. He dropped a 250kg bomb on that occasion. I've no idea of what part of the Liberty Bell he hit, or if the explosion of his bomb caused its loss. Does his memoirs give any details?
@@neiloflongbeck5705 I don't have my copy nearby, but I recall it did give some detail about the instances they used it, more than "we hit something".
@@JagerLange thanks, it's an interesting topic.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 No problem. I recommend getting hold of a copy, it's a very good read.
I got the impression that the AT folks were trying to get someone to build something like a stug.
It may be impracticable to use “practicable” practically due to spell-check impracticalities. At least on an iPad.
Great content in this presentation!
The air-to-air bombs was a 1930s conceit. The Bell YFM-1 Airacuda (The big twin pusher-propeller bomber destroyer had bays built into the wings for air-to-air bombs. The Germans and Japanese deployed them, and despite one or two reported successes, worked about as. Well as the Anti-tank Rock.
I have a question how hot can a tank gun get and if continued firing would it warp the barrel ?
And would a gold tank barrel be possible just very curious thank you
A mile in 10 minutes with all equipment...id die if we did that now.
I believe that we did develop a version of the German butterfly bomb. I recall seeing some WW II film on CZcams describing some sort of cluster bomb that dispensed a bunch of little fluttering bomblets that corkscrewed their way down and would hang in bushes or land on the ground, and would then blow up when they were touched. The film claimed that the basic idea had been German and we "had improved on it". I wish I could recall the film or the armament designation, but I can't.
@45:35 Using the ADA guys as porters. See, this is why troops hate working for different branches.
Dutch forces in Afghanistan wrote home asking family to buy them uniforms, helmets, bulletproof vests, combat boots, webbing, etc. etc. as the Dutch army wasn't supplying them any...
Anti-tank guns were used to take out machine gun nests, etc. Much the same as the current 84mm messaging system.
The German armoured division had around 100 anti-tank guns at the beginning of 1943.
Get your Garand from the CMP program
Also the complaint on the rear sight was dealt with.
What was the problem with the rear sight anyway? Was it losing zero or did they really just lose portions of the rear sight?
@@Maverick-gg2do the sight would drop from the recoil of the shot. Springfield armory developed a lock bar that would keep the sight still
However, anytime you add the sight for elevation you had to loosen it, adj the sight and then lock it. Have it on my m1
Attach drag hooks to normal rtilary to drag enemy barbwire across enemy lines.
The bombs could be used as a flak of sorts dispersing under a bomber as a chance to take out enemy fighters or relased behind a fighter like chaff
I always wondered why the Allies didn't launch grappling hooks on single cables from artillery on Destroyers and other small craft onto beaches, to cut or pull away German barbed wire before landing as the craft withdrew, and/or launching linked pairs of cables to encompass various obstacles placed on the beaches to remove, damage, or detonate them.
well now we know how the idea for the M56 GUN TRACKS AND MOBILE
45:00 the gasoline can versus water can, I read once in a thread about idiots in the military, about a particular idiot who was sent to make coffee and came back with coffee made with diesel oil. This was after cans were differentiated! My boss was in the navy, and told me he was once handed a cup of coffee that had been made with water from the sea (there are seawater faucets on ships, this saves fresh water and sea water is healthful to bathe in, as well), he noticed something was amiss when the powdered creamer started to make it fizz.
The reason you stencil "Fuel", "Oil" and "Water" or F, O and W on Jerry Cans
I have seen several references in multiple armies to water being delivered to the front line troops in used gasoline cans, resulting in water being unusable.
Can you do a video on modern combat doctrine infantry and armour
If memory serves, the Luftwaffe did use bombers against 8th Air Force B17 and B24 formations (Stukas or JU 88s I think).
That barbed wire clearing mortar, sounds like a super alpha test version of a MCLC
A bomber bombing bomber bomb.....interesting.
The Germans did it once with a Bf-109 on 22nd March 1943, died that count?
Japanese played around with it, too, with a cluster bomb.
The closest thing that the US had to the Butterfly bomb that I know of was the AN-M40. It was only used in the Pacific, apparently no one else wanted them. I'm guessing because they didn't have a delayed version like made the Butterfly bomb such a problem.
The United States manufactured a copy of the SD 2 (Butterfly bomb) for use during World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam War, designating it the M83 submunition (And other branch designations). Used to limit Vietnamese in the Ho Chi Ming trail. Discontinued due to especially the later plastic ones where infamous in wounding and killing children after end of hostilities between the US and belligerent nations causing negative press.
snowstalker "The United States manufactured a copy of the SD 2 for use during World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam War, designating it the M83 submunition.[14] The 3 fuze types used on the M83 submunition were slightly modified versions of the original German designs:-" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Bomb#US_copy
maximietteita.blogspot.com/2016/01/german-butterfly-sd-2-bomb.html
www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/bfly/index.html
The M40 was the Paeafrag, used to great effect in the Pacific world-war-2.wikia.org/wiki/AN-M40_Fragmentation_Bomb
The Russians had the PTAB antitank cluster bomb - maybe the first top attack AT weapon en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB_(bomb)
www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/j3fsha/yak9b_dropping_ptabs/
@@colbeausabre8842 Do you have when that went into US production? I had never heard of it in relation to WW2 use, so I'm assuming very late. The AN-M40, well... the trials weapon that got standardized as it, was already developed at US entry.
@@snowstalker36 I'm not sure of the manufacturing date, but 5th Air Force used them at Wewak, New Guinea in August, 1943 "Another attack on the airfields was dispatched on the morning of 18 August to strafe and bomb the fields from low altitude. The 3rd Attack Group[4] was assigned to attack Wewak and Boram fields, while the 38th Bomb Group was sent further west to attack Dagua and But airdromes. Each of the 62 bombers was loaded with 12 clusters of three 23 lb (10 kg) "para-frag" bombs"
If you are referring to the M83, it is referenced in the 1945 manual "US Bombs and Fuzes, Pyrotechnics"
A Navy training film on the M83 is dated early 1945 czcams.com/video/fJT-ZJsHTl0/video.html
8:50 I recall reading that Japan developed bombs specifically for use against bomber formations, which was supposed to rain incendiary shrapnel onto them. Type 99....something. So it must've been a thing.
Its a rather obvious idea tbh... big boom is big boom
There was a similar idea in the late inter-war years with a concept called a bomber destroyer. They didn't carry bombs per-se, but they were usually big enough to carry very large cannon with the idea that the cannon could be used to blow the bombers out of the sky. The idea failed horribly.
It was a cluster bomb. Didn't work well against aircraft, but did work well with ground targets.
I'd love if ya would throw up the scans into a PDF or google doc or whatever so we can nerd out over it.