Flamethrowers and DD tanks -1 reply

Please wait...

Suckysniper

I puked on a B17,once its true

50 XP

1st January 2006

0 Uploads

117 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

u know i suggested the DD tank a very VERY long time ago under a different name. only two ever made it to shore out of 27 i believe. i honestly wouldn't want to see it (even though i suggested it before... ironic)




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

That's only on omaha beach. The majority of DD tanks on other beachs made it however.




[tR]Mad Mac

Aerospace Engineering FTW!

50 XP

19th May 2004

0 Uploads

1,242 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

Please use the search button. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the past.




G.Drew (bf2)(cod2)

The crazy cat-guy-man-thing

50 XP

12th February 2006

0 Uploads

190 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago
{TDB} BravowhiskyThe DD Shermans could not fire while the canvas screen was up, the muzzle was also plugged. So they were of no help to the infantry on the beach until they reach the beach also.

the purpose of the DD tanks were that they provide fire support and because of the canvas it looked like a dingy,it would then throw the germans completely off (or fool them as it were)until it got to shore. and then BANG! the shermans would open up and the germans would shit themselves rotten!




[BFE]Adder

Lord of Irony

50 XP

4th June 2005

0 Uploads

304 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
'[130pz.Kading']Adder, you are WAY off on why so many DD tanks were lost. here is what happened: in the strong current off of Omaha beach they were being pushed toward the Brit sectors, so they turned back towards Omaha. unfortunately (as all yachtsmen know) waves are more likely to swamp you if they come from your side. THIS and not machinegun fire is what spelled the demise of the Omaha DDs.

Good job on reading my post, lets try this agian Second in reality the k98 could perice the DD tank screen just fine, about anything sharp and pointy could, one of the reasons why the DD tank was lost in so great a number.




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago
'[BFEAdder']Good job on reading my post, lets try this agian Second in reality the k98 could perice the DD tank screen just fine, about anything sharp and pointy could, one of the reasons why the DD tank was lost in so great a number.

The screen could be peirced but that's not a reason why they were lost in such great numbers on Omaha. A small hole in the screen from a K98 round would be nowhere near large enough to allow enough water to enter the area around the tank to cause it to sink. Also the tanks were already posistivley bouyant and sealed to keep water from entering as easily. So lone shooters with K98s or even MGs were not sinking DD tanks. DD tanks largely made it to shore unscathed on every other beach without incident which is further proof of that.

The reason so many DD tanks were lost on Omaha beach was due to the fact that they were launched too far from shore in seas that were too rough and they were swamped by waves and sunk before they even got in range.




G.Drew (bf2)(cod2)

The crazy cat-guy-man-thing

50 XP

12th February 2006

0 Uploads

190 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

and it was supposed that they picked at spot to head towards, which made them push against the tide and the water caved in on the sides, thats y they sank on omaha, because of rough seas, no because of MGs or even snipers!




[BFE]Adder

Lord of Irony

50 XP

4th June 2005

0 Uploads

304 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

Can you people even read?

Lets try it agian Second in reality the k98 could perice the DD tank screen just fine, about anything sharp and pointy could,[SIZE=10] one of the reasons why the DD tank was lost in so great a number.[/SIZE] Which of course implies there is... MORE THAN ONE REASON! How about that? I'm not aurging the point about the reason the majority of the DD tanks were lost(Distance to shore, Poor seaworthness, and Rough seas). I'm point out the fact that you had a tank surrounded by a giant canvos airbag of sorts that kept it afloat. Should that air be lost in the floater rig the tank will sink. Pure and simple

Considering you had a cloth cover which could easily be shot apart and thus the tank sunk you can see why I say attacking a beach with fixed defenses with a mix of anti-infantry and anti-tank emplacements that the DD tanks were a rough compromise at the time.




King_Nothing100

I aim to please

50 XP

23rd February 2003

0 Uploads

892 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago
G.Drew (bf2)(cod2)and it was supposed that they picked at spot to head towards, which made them push against the tide and the water caved in on the sides, thats y they sank on omaha, because of rough seas, no because of MGs or even snipers!

They used the steeple of the church at Coleville-Sur-Mer to head towards, and as Kading said as the strong current pushed them of course they altered their course back towads the steeple so this made the side of the tank vulrenable to the waves so their took on water and swamped, had they continued to just ride with the waves forward they may have landed but they would have been off course.




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

'[BFEAdder']Can you people even read?

Lets try it agian Second in reality the k98 could perice the DD tank screen just fine, about anything sharp and pointy could,[SIZE=10] one of the reasons why the DD tank was lost in so great a number.[/SIZE] Which of course implies there is... MORE THAN ONE REASON! How about that? I'm not aurging the point about the reason the majority of the DD tanks were lost(Distance to shore, Poor seaworthness, and Rough seas). I'm point out the fact that you had a tank surrounded by a giant canvos airbag of sorts that kept it afloat. Should that air be lost in the floater rig the tank will sink. Pure and simple

Considering you had a cloth cover which could easily be shot apart and thus the tank sunk you can see why I say attacking a beach with fixed defenses with a mix of anti-infantry and anti-tank emplacements that the DD tanks were a rough compromise at the time.

You're missing the point. :uhoh: The DD tanks at Omaha sank nearly 1000 meters away from the beach. They weren't shot. Just look the event up and you'll see they all sunk about 1000 meters from dry land. The canvas was not an airbag. It was a canvas. It surrounded the tank just like the hull of a ship. As such, there was no air to loose if the screen took on some holes. A single k98 bullet was not going to sink it. Case and point Sword beach were 32 out of 34 tanks make it to shore without incident. Having a tank that could be taken out by an infantry rifle round would be the single dumbest military idea ever. As such, there was no air to loose if the screen took on some holes.

Finnally look at the other DDay beaches:

Sword: 32 out of 34 tanks make it to shore. Gold: Due to rough seas, they decide to land the LCT's directly on the beach instead of launching the DDtanks, unlike the geniuses at Omaha. Utah: 28 out of 32 tanks make. Four tanks are lost when their LCT hits a mine. So the point is, bullets were not a factor at all in deteremining the large tank losses on Omaha beach. Saying what you think happened based on what you know doesn't count. Especially when the facts point to otherwise.

Finnally a little reading. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/marine_dday_underwater_05.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2016280.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/marine_dday_underwater_01.shtml

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/duplex_drive.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD_tank

:deal: