Planet Rugby Forum

B-57B observing a nuclear test during Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 12 July 1958

came across this recently:



imo probably the most entertaining read about of soldiers at war

sample it here

Monk Zombie wrote:came across this recently:



imo probably the most entertaining read about of soldiers at war

sample it here

Cheers for that. Will try and track it down.

Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!

GWO2 wrote:

redderneck wrote:That stunning Lanc pic is crying out for a cheeky photos hop of an "F" immediately between the roundel and the "A"...!!!

Great, great shot.

Another, he has a set of four.

I was talking to my dad on Sunday about these photos,(he`s 99 this year) and he told me they are not Lancs. they are Avro Lincolns


http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/aircr ... ro-lincoln

GWO2 wrote:

GWO2 wrote:

redderneck wrote:That stunning Lanc pic is crying out for a cheeky photos hop of an "F" immediately between the roundel and the "A"...!!!

Great, great shot.

Another, he has a set of four.

I was talking to my dad on Sunday about these photos,(he`s 99 this year) and he told me they are not Lancs. they are Avro Lincolns


http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/aircr ... ro-lincoln

You can tell by the "Greenhouse" nose and only 2 Cannon instead of 4 Machine Guns in the rear Turret.

I love my old regiment



Also

hornets wrote:I love my old regiment



Also

That bottom photo
End thread

Tits were pointier in the old days tbh

Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!

Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.

TrailApe wrote:

Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!

Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.

A British airplane silhouetted by searchlights on the Rock of Gibraltar as it prepared for a flight to the United Kingdom, circa 1943

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/03 ... 0Old%20Gib

TrailApe wrote:

Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!

Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.

I read somewhere that Patton was hugely influential in the US Army choosing the Sherman tank over other better armoured options as he favoured speed over protection.

danny_fitz wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!

Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.

I read somewhere that Patton was hugely influential in the US Army choosing the Sherman tank over other better armoured options as he favoured speed over protection.

I think it's a complete/debunked myth

Patton was a nobody when the Sherman was adopted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

backrow wrote:didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too

Laurent wrote:

backrow wrote:didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too

From memory, diesel engines are more expensive to make so petrol was widely used. The Russians used diesel because of the lower freezing point.

happyhooker wrote:

Laurent wrote:

backrow wrote:didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too

From memory, diesel engines are more expensive to make so petrol was widely used. The Russians used diesel because of the lower freezing point.

cool, thanks (err I mean Tanks)

had thought ze germans used Diesels for some reason.

Laurent wrote:

danny_fitz wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

Just had a look at the chapters and am intrigued as to how someone in armour could survive that whole stretch!

Tankies had a better life expectancy than the groundpounders.

I know the WW2 British tank story is often a tale of woe littered by burning Sherman's and desert war cavalry style idiocy, however they did have a better chance of getting through the war than the infantry.

I read somewhere that Patton was hugely influential in the US Army choosing the Sherman tank over other better armoured options as he favoured speed over protection.

I think it's a complete/debunked myth

Patton was a nobody when the Sherman was adopted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

happyhooker wrote:

Laurent wrote:

backrow wrote:didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

Russians used diesel

German engines were petrol too

From memory, diesel engines are more expensive to make so petrol was widely used. The Russians used diesel because of the lower freezing point.

Petrol has a far lower freezing point than diesel,about -60 IIRC, whereas diesel starts waxing at about -15. Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember winters where locos had to be periodically fired up and run to prevent waxing, and having to thaw tractors out with a blow torch to get the fuel to flow.

Yea, thought there was something wrong with that after I posted it

Can't remember why the hell the Russians used diesel then. Petrol engines are definitely cheaper to make

slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.

happyhooker wrote:Yea, thought there was something wrong with that after I posted it

Can't remember why the hell the Russians used diesel then. Petrol engines are definitely cheaper to make

their refineries?

backrow wrote:slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.

Fit tanks with 88mm anti-aircraft/flak guns
Train tank crews to shoot on the move
Lower the profile of the tank
Include sloping and sacrificial armour

backrow wrote:slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.

I suppose even if the tech / knowledge was available, you'd also need the political will and infrastructure to build, and the skilled men to fly / drive / march.

I don't know the ins and outs of the early battles enough to know if the Jerries' technological edge helped them on the Western front in 1940. Was it more strategic / tactical / numerical?

Nieghorn wrote:

backrow wrote:slight off topic, but I just wanted to share a 'what if' daydream I had re ww2

basically, what would happen if you went back in time to say 1935 to England, with your ww2 knowledge and some tech know how ? am not talking about going back in time with modern Eurofighters & abrams tanks & nukes, but just some modern techniques that could have been used given 1935 levels of metelurgy and availability.

for example, going with a laminar flow airfoil design, getting some fibreglass sheets built for lightness & strength, going to Rolls Royce with the idea of Miss shillings orifice for the Merlin, and basically getting a Mustang built early ?

or going with a t34 sloped armour & wide tracks idea for tanks ?

am unsure what the greatest benefit would have been back then ignoring giving someone a nuclear bomb early - the obvious one is finding Frank Whittle and getting him to develop jets quicker than the initial RAF apathy and lack of cash allowed. some of the tech advances in ww2 were astonishing, others much less so.

I suppose even if the tech / knowledge was available, you'd also need the political will and infrastructure to build, and the skilled men to fly / drive / march.

I don't know the ins and outs of the early battles enough to know if the Jerries' technological edge helped them on the Western front in 1940. Was it more strategic / tactical / numerical?

well fibreglass, or even de Havilland's balsa sandwich techniques, were all known well before ww2 (as was sloped armour) - its just the idea of the application of it.

re ze germans in 1940, it deffo wasn't numerical advantage or even particularly technical advantage all the time - but was most deffo strategic and tactical superiority with Blitzkrieg, tactical doctrine that encouraged subalterns to take command if necessary, and such genius plans such as going through Belgium again to avoid the maginot line.

If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently

Mick Mannock wrote:If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently

I gather part of the failure of it was not getting Belgium to buy in / not able to alienate them by building through?

Our time traveller would have to get them and the Dutch to get on board, or for the French to say 'screw zem'?

Nieghorn wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently

I gather part of the failure of it was not getting Belgium to buy in / not able to alienate them by building through?

Our time traveller would have to get them and the Dutch to get on board, or for the French to say 'screw zem'?

ze germans had special teams trained to take out the Maginot line , including parachuting behind it

backrow wrote:didn't ze germans call Shermans 'Tommy Cookers' because if hit the petrol engines would ignite whereas if a german tank got whacked the Diesel fuel didn't ?

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

My father in law was badly burned when his tank went up in 44. He and his twin brother were in the guards, he was wounded and his brother ended up a POW for the rest of the war. He was one of eight boys, all in the services during the war, only the youngest got killed aged 18.

am not really clued up about non aircraft engines of the period, was there any particular reason the Allied tanks didn't use Diesel engines which seem to be a far more sensible choice ?

As already mentioned, the Germans used petrol engines as well. There were a few diesel engine tanks on the allied side – the Matilda II for example and the Sherman was fitted with diesel engines but mainly used by the US Marines. I think petrol engines were used mainly for commonality – bit of a logistic strain to bring in two types of fuel (and remember it wasn’t only tanks that required motion-lotion, you have to refuel all of the motorised assets).

As mentioned the Tommy cooker/Ronson urban myth has been debunked and has been discovered to be a post war term. In some of the research it has been demonstrated that the Sherman’s main rival, the PzIV was just as likely to burn when suffering a hit. Having said that it was discovered that in Normandy the British Shermans tended to go woosh, however subsequent investigations found out that the catastrophic fires were caused mainly due to ammunition. At the time the 21st Army Group were the ones having to take on the bulk of the Panzer Divisions so they were tooling up with extra ammo as they had plenty of targets to use it on and it was this unstowed ammo that was causing most of the fires. A stricter supervision of the ammo loads reduced the instances of fires.

The end of the war saw the Brits extensively using the legendary Merlin aero-engine converted to ground use and called the Meteor. I think the only post war/end of war tank that didn’t use the Comet was the Churchill which used a Bedford engine which I think was developed from a bus engine.

^

Re: Panzer IV crew ... not for the faint of heart.

Nieghorn wrote:^

Re: Panzer IV crew ... not for the faint of heart.

Spoiler: show

Bloody hell I knew the desert was a hot environment but that is nuts.

Nieghorn wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:If France had completed The Maginot Line to include the Belgian border and heavily mined the Ardennes area things would definitely have worked out differently

I gather part of the failure of it was not getting Belgium to buy in / not able to alienate them by building through?

Our time traveller would have to get them and the Dutch to get on board, or for the French to say 'screw zem'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, including aerial bombings and tank fire, and had underground railways as a backup; it also had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, supplying air conditioning and eating areas for their comfort.[1] Instead of attacking directly, the Germans invaded through the Low Countries, bypassing the Line to the north.

French and British officers had anticipated this: when Germany invaded the Netherlands and Belgium, they carried out plans to form an aggressive front that cut across Belgium and connected to the Maginot Line. However, the French line was weak near the Ardennes forest. The French believed this region, with its rough terrain, would be an unlikely invasion route of German forces; if it was traversed, it would be done at a slow rate that would allow the French time to bring up reserves and counterattack.

The German Army, having reformulated their plans from a repeat of the First World War-era plan, became aware of and exploited this weak point in the French defensive front. A rapid advance through the forest and across the River Meuse encircled much of the Allied forces, resulting in a sizeable force being evacuated at Dunkirk leaving the forces to the south unable to mount an effective resistance to the German invasion of France

An assortment of pics supposedly all from battle for Stalingrad (site isn't always the greatest with accuracy)

http://www.vintag.es/2018/03/horrors-of ... hotos.html

Turbogoat wrote:If you're in Aus in the pics it's probably an L1A1, rather than an FN FAL in the first pic. Same same/ but different. Based on the same weapon.

Correct, also known as the SLR or 7.62. The other is the GPMG M60.
Amazingly for Aussies it was usually called by its TLA rather than a 'slur' for short. The only people who called them slurs were roaches. The same wannabes who conflate sas rather than say the three letters or rar rather than R A R.

Brumbie_Steve wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:If you're in Aus in the pics it's probably an L1A1, rather than an FN FAL in the first pic. Same same/ but different. Based on the same weapon.

Correct, also known as the SLR or 7.62. The other is the GPMG M60.
Amazingly for Aussies it was usually called by its TLA rather than a 'slur' for short. The only people who called them slurs were roaches. The same wannabes who conflate sas rather than say the three letters or rar rather than R A R.

Also, there were many who used the 30 Round straight 7.62 Bren Mag in them when they could

Capture of Lord Haw Haw




Some Ruskies in Berlin

Wreck of the USS Lexington has been discovered. Couple of cracking pictures in the article:

Grumman Avenger?







http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-43296489

Douglas Dauntless more likely.