Quotulatiousness

April 1, 2018

German Armored Cars in WW1 I THE GREAT WAR On The Road

Filed under: Germany, History, Military, Technology, WW1 — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

The Great War
Published on 31 Mar 2018

The German Tank Museum on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/daspanzermuseum

Germany only fielded 20-40 armored cars in World War 1, mostly on the Eastern Front. Not much about their operational history is known but they did play an important role in the German Civil War and the Weimar Republic.

March 27, 2018

German WW1 Prototype Tanks Of 1918 I THE GREAT WAR On The Road

Filed under: Germany, History, Military, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

The Great War
Published on 26 Mar 2018

Get Our New Oberschlesien Tank Poster: http://bit.ly/PanzerOberschlesien

The German Tank Museum: https://www.youtube.com/DasPanzermuseum

While the German Army only fielded 20 A7V tanks during World War 1, they understood the potential of the tank and started working on different designs in the last year of the war. Some designs like the LKII almost got deployed while the Sturmpanzerwagen Oberschlesien or the Krupp-Protze never left the prototype stage.

March 23, 2018

Tank Chats #25 Mark VIII | The Tank Museum

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Technology, USA, WW1 — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

The Tank Museum
Published on 12 Aug 2016

In the 25th Tank Chat David Fletcher explores the First World War Mark VIII tank. The Mark VIII tank, also known as The International was a joint project between the British and American forces, following their entry into the war. Once the designs had been refined massive orders were placed in 1918 and then swiftly cancelled with the end of the war. In the end six Mark VIII tanks were built for Britain of which The Tank Museum’s is the sole surviving example.
http://tankmuseum.org/museum-online/vehicles/object-e1949-363

March 20, 2018

Inside the German A7V WW1 Tank I THE GREAT WAR On The Road

Filed under: Germany, History, Military, Technology, WW1 — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

The Great War
Published on 19 Mar 2018

The German Tank Museum: http://daspanzermuseum.de/

We visited the German Tank Museum (in Munster, not Münster) and talked to the director Ralf Raths about the German tanks in World War 1. The only one that saw action was the A7V and will find out how it was designed, how up to 23 men fit inside one of these and what the operational history was.

March 17, 2018

Tank Chats #24 Vickers A1E1 Independent | The Tank Museum

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

The Tank Museum
Published on 5 Aug 2016

In the 24th Tank Chat, David Fletcher looks at the rather unusual Vickers A1E1 Independent. The Independent originated in 1922 with a War Office specification for a heavy tank. Ultimately it proved to be a failed project was abandoned in 1935, by which time it had cost more than £150,000, and sent to Bovington. It is the only tank of its kind in existence.

March 7, 2018

Tank Chats #23 Hornsby Tractor | The Tank Museum

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

The Tank Museum
Published on 15 Jul 2016

In the 23rd Tank Chat, David Fletcher takes a look at the Hornsby Tractor. The Hornsby Tractor was the first tracked vehicle in service with the British Army. They were designed to tow artillery.

The Museum’s example is still running and is the oldest vehicle in the collection.
http://tankmuseum.org/museum-online/vehicles/object-e1958-15

February 26, 2018

Tank Chat: 100 Years of The Tank at TANKFEST 2016 | The Tank Museum

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Technology — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 02:00

The Tank Museum
Published on 1 Jul 2016

Watch David Fletcher make a comparison of the First World War Mark IV and Challenger 2, the British Army’s current Main Battle Tank, from the back of the Rolls Royce Armoured car.

February 8, 2018

Canada wants to sell Leopard 1 Tanks!

Filed under: Cancon, Military, Technology — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 04:00

Matsimus
Published on 5 Feb 2018

Captain Scott Franklin, with the office of the Director Land Requirements, pointed out in a Jan. 23 article on the Army’s website that with the delivery of the new Leopard 2 Tank Mobility Implements in the fall of 2017, the last of the Army’s Leopard 1 tanks have been parked for good.

So what happens with those tanks?

Department of National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier explained to what might happen with the surplus Leopard 1s:

“The Department of National Defence has a formal process for disposing of surplus Canadian Armed Forces equipment. Once DND and the CAF has declared equipment surplus, a disposal plan is written that describes the preparatory steps that are to be performed, and describes the strategies for its removal from the DND system of record. The disposal plan assesses options, including retention, for alternate use within DND and the CAF (e.g. for training or display purposes), transfer to another Federal Government organization, sale, donation, or conversion to waste.

In the case of the Leopard 1 family of vehicles, there are 52 remaining Leopard 1C2 Main Battle Tanks, and 5 Leopard 1 Armoured Engineering Vehicles remaining. They will remain in place until a disposal mechanism is selected. They are currently distributed in Edmonton, Alberta; Montreal, Quebec; and Gagetown, New Brunswick. The first option would be to sell the tanks. Any revenue generating option for the government is encouraged. The tanks were listed for sale since 31 Aug 2015. While there is some interest currently, there are no firm buyers. The sale is open to approved foreign nations or approved Canadian industry. The second option is to use the tanks for alternative use (hard targets, monuments/artefacts). If tanks cannot be sold, alternative applications will be sought that may bring value to the government.

The last option would be to destroy the tanks. NO!

February 6, 2018

Tank Chats #22 Mark V Two Star

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, WW1 — Tags: — Nicholas @ 02:00

The Tank Museum
Published on 10 Jun 2016

Mark V** – A longer tank for wider trenches.

When the Germans realised what a threat tanks could be, they made their trenches wider to trap them; one answer to this was to build longer tanks and the Mark V was stretched by six feet to create the Mark V*. As an interim solution this was adequate but a further improved version, the Mark V** was designed for 1919.

Find out more about the First World War on the Tank Museum’s Centenary blog, Tank 100 http://www.tank100.com

January 26, 2018

Tank Chats #21 Mark V

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Technology, WW1 — Tags: — Nicholas @ 02:00

Tank Museum
Published on 27 May 2016

Although similar in appearance to earlier models the Mark V was a much better tank, more powerful and easier to drive.

It was equipped with a new engine and steering system which meant that one man could handle all the controls, compared with four in the Mark IV.

Commanded by a young officer named Whittenbury the Museum’s Mark V tank, seen in this video, took part in the Battle of Amiens and its young commander was awarded the Military Cross.

January 19, 2018

What “killed” the most tanks in World War 2?

Filed under: Britain, Europe, France, Germany, History, Military, USA, Weapons, WW2 — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Military History Visualized
Published on 22 Dec 2017

This video discusses what killed the most tanks in World War 2. Was it anti-tank guns, mines, planes, hand-held anti-tank weapons, mechanical breakdowns, etc. Also a short look at the problems of the term “kill”, e.g., mobility, firepower and catastrophic/complete kill.

Original Question by Christopher: “What destroyed the most tanks during WW2: infantry, planes, anti-tank guns, or other tanks (I’m not sure if tank destroyers needs its own category or not).”

January 16, 2018

PIAT: Britain’s Answer to the Anti-Tank Rifle Problem

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Technology, Weapons, WW2 — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Forgotten Weapons
Published on 25 Nov 2017

The British began World War Two with the Boys antitank rifle, but like all antitank rifles it rather quickly became obsolete. The replacement for it was adopted in 1942 as the PIAT – Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank. This was a unique sort of weapon which fired a 3 pound (~1.35kg) hollow charge projectile using a combination of a massive spring and a firing charge much like a rifle grenade blank cartridge – a spigot mortar, really. The large (3.25″, 83mm) projectile was able to defeat almost any tank that would be developed during the war, as it could burn through 3-4 inches of hardened armor. However, it had a terrifyingly short effective range – 110 yards on paper and more like 50 yards in practice.

The PIAT would recock itself upon firing, but the initial cocking was something like a crossbow, requiring the shooter to brace their feet on the buttplate and pull the body of the weapon upwards, compressing the 200 pound (90kg) mainspring. When fired, the weapon has a pretty harsh recoil, although it did not have any flash or backblast like the American Bazooka did. By the end of the war more 115,000 PIATs had been made, and they would serve the British military into the 1950s, when they were replaced with more traditional rocket launchers.

January 14, 2018

M4 Sherman Tank – Crew tell how shocking it was

Filed under: History, Military, Technology, WW2 — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 02:00

spottydog4477
Published on 18 Sep 2011

Doctrine

As the US approached entry in World War II, armored employment was doctrinally governed by FM 100-5 Operations (published May 1941, the month following selection of the M4 tank’s final design). That FM stated that:

    The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.

In other words, the M4 was envisioned to primarily fill the role of a cruiser tank — although the US Army did not use that doctrinal term. The M4 was not primarily intended as an infantry support tank; in fact, FM 100-5 specifically stated the opposite. It placed tanks in the “striking echelon” of the armored division, and placed the infantry in the “support echelon”. Neither was the M4 primarily intended for tank versus tank action. Doctrinally, anti-tank engagements were the primary role of tank destroyers. The field manual covering the use of the Sherman (FM 17-33 The Tank Battalion, Light and Medium of September 1942) devoted one page of text and four diagrams to tank versus tank action (out of 142 pages). This early armored doctrine was heavily influenced by the sweeping initial successes of the German blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately, by the time M4s reached combat in significant numbers, battlefield demands for infantry support and tank versus tank action far outnumbered the occasional opportunities for cruiser tanks.

Although envisioned primarily as a cruiser-type tank, US doctrine did also contemplate the M4’s use in other roles. Unlike some other nations, which had separate medium tank designs tailored specifically for anti-tank roles (e.g., the German PzKfw III) and support roles (the PzKfw IV), the US intended the M4 to fulfill all roles. Although not optimized for tank versus tank engagements or infantry support, the M4 was capable of performing these missions to varying degrees. In the Pacific Theater, the Sherman was used chiefly against Japanese infantry and fortifications; in their rare encounters with lighter Japanese tanks with weaker armor and guns, the Shermans were vastly superior.

The doctrine of the time had Shermans as a sort of infantry tank. All anti-tank work was supposed to be done by tank-destroyer crews. Speed was essential in order to bring the tank-destroyers from the rear to destroy incoming tanks. Thankfully, for Sherman crews, this doctrine was not entirely used as it would create a small window of time of weakness in the armored battalion until tank destroyers moved to the front. Obviously this would make it harder for an armored force to achieve a breakthrough, a main objective of armor, if the enemy had tanks. It would also be easier for an opposing armored force to achieve a breakthrough against an American tank battalion which would not have all of its anti-tank assets at the front during the beginning of any attack.

January 9, 2018

German Anti-Tank Units – Herman Göring – Caltrops I OUT OF THE TRENCHES

Filed under: Europe, History, Military, WW1 — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

The Great War
Published on 8 Jan 2018

Ask your questions here: http://outofthetrenches.thegreatwar.tv

January 7, 2018

Inside the Rolls Royce Armoured Car I THE GREAT WAR Special

Filed under: Britain, History, Military, Technology, WW1 — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

The Great War
Published on 6 Jan 2018

Check out The Tank Museum on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/tankmuseum

Indy speaks to David Willey, curator of The Tank Museum in Bovington, about the Rolls Royce Armoured Car, one of the most iconic armoured cars of World War 1. From its early, improvised days on the Western Front to deployment in the far corners of the British Empire.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress