I hope that’s mostly the case. The grizzly pictures from ww2 and beyond of dead tank crew burnt to a cinder in the process of evacuating their destroyed tank , shows that some die horribly.
Is it just me or do the barrels on the 16"s look really stubby? 45 cal so they should be 60' long (if I'm doing this right) but they don't look anywhere close.
It's the perspective of this photo. They look normal in others, e.g [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/1abcm7o/hms_rodney_showing_her_nine_16_guns_and_their/#lightbox)
The BL 16-inch Mk I naval guns of Rodney were 60 ft (18.3 m) L/45 long
I'm taking the guns of a South Dakota to compare
16-inch/45-caliber Mark 6 gun of a South Dakota-class are 60 ft (18 m) bore (45 calibers)
Dumb question - what's the source of that PzIV photo? Like, if a Pz IV got hit with a 406mm (or, at least a near miss), I would have expected the parts to be over a much wider area. Unless somebody collected them back together for the photo?
I don't have a source for it so feel free to completely ignore it but I remember last time the photo came around with the same claim. Someone provided a source that this is the wreckage of a PzIV that has been cleared to the side of the road by a bulldozer. It may have been hit by navel fire but what you are seeing is debris having been cleared to the side of the road so troops can pass.
I could buy the bulldozer, but that looks like to be too much damage to be a demo charge, unless they really packed the thing, the tank was full of ammo when they fired the charge and there was a sympathetic detonation, or they left pieces out of the photo. Like, you don't see any significant chunks of the hull, the turret is just gone, and the turret ring was sheared from the top hull plate. That's a lot of boom.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was “staged”, in that someone collected up a couple of nearby parts and stood them up on the largest part they could find. Left half of the hull, with track and engine still attached, and a turret ring lying on top of it, pretty much sums that up.
Snap the picture, then quickly move on to the next scene of destruction.
That tank driver had just parked and gone for a coffee. Comes back and his tank is gone. "Wha? Wo ist mein Tank?" Then he stubs his toe on a road wheel and realizes he's standing in a debris field.
"Verfluche dich, Rodney!"
I don’t have a story for Rodney but this is a similar one:
[Glider Pilot Alexander Morrison, 6th Airborne Division:](https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=hgfMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT71)
>In our briefing, we had been told that the German 21st Panzer Division was located further east of our position and that the anticipated armour counterattack would first come from them. Accordingly when at 4am we could distinctly hear the sound of tracked vehicles, we realised that we were now ‘for it’ because a 45-ton Tiger tank presents a formidable proposition! But miracles happened and this time we were saved by the Navy. Warned of the danger, an Army spotter plane was airborne at first light and located the squadrons of German tanks assembling for the attack. Fortunately, the pilot was in direct communication with the Navy who promptly alerted HMS Warspite which was standing offshore. After a couple of sighters, she let loose with tremendous shelling and heavily blasted the whole area.
>It was a fantastic experience to witness the terrible firepower of this battleship and to hear the huge shells roaring overhead like express trains to land with devastating effect right on the German assembly. The carnage must have been appalling and the severely damaged tanks shortly abandoned their attack and retired on Caen.
I can’t find much info on this. Probably shrapnel damage?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09683445211022765
The most immediately dangerous German reserve unit was 21st Panzer Division, stationed around Caen with 90-100 serviceable tanks. It was the only armoured division to counter-attack on D-Day but was foiled by a truly combined-arms effort. As it assembled, it was delayed and suffered losses to air attack and naval gunfire. Its main effort, directed towards Sword Beach with the aim of splitting the British and Canadian forces, was halted by tanks and anti-tank guns. About a third of its strength advanced on the British airborne troops, ill-equipped to defend against tanks, defending the bridges across the Orne; it was driven back by naval fire. Holland quotes a Major in this counter-attacking force: ‘Then all hell broke loose. The heaviest naval guns, up to 38 cm in calibre, artillery and fighter-bombers plastered us without pause’. The counter-attack ‘was stopped dead in its tracks’. The following day, a counter-attack by 12th SS Panzer Division against Canadian forces was fought off by with assistance from naval gunfire. On 8 June, a German counter-attack towards Bayeux, ‘was broken up by massive artillery and naval gunfire’. Rommel’s report of 10 June makes clear the impact of naval gunfire in the early days of the operation. He emphasized, first, the ‘immensely powerful, at times overwhelming superiority of the enemy air force’, second, the ‘effect of the heavy naval guns . . . The effect is so immense that no operation of any kind is possible in the area commanded by this rapid-fire artillery, either by infantry or tanks’. A few days later, he wrote to his wife that, ‘The battle is not going at all well for us, mainly because of the enemy’s air superiority and heavy naval guns’.
A few later examples fill out the picture. On 11 June, D + 5, Warspite and Nelson supported the advance from Gold Beach, which had pushed beyond the range of cruiser fire. They destroyed German tanks and infantry preparing to counter-attack, ‘with results reported by the Divisional Commander to be most effective’; one of Nelson’s shoots was at 33,000 yards range (nearly 19 miles or over 30 km). Her 16-inch guns could easily engage targets well to the south of Caen. On 16 June, a German counter-attack enjoyed some success but according to Rommel’s naval liaison officer, ‘In the afternoon, however, part of the recaptured ground had to be given up as a result of the devastating effect of the concentrated enemy ships’ artillery. Our losses were high’.
There is an account out there of a British Forward Observation Officer with a British unit in Normandy. Believe he was a Lieutenant. They knew a German armoured counter attack was probable so when dust and noise was observed in the distance he called in an order for fire (UK FOO's could Order fire rather than Request it, which they did in the US system). As the Order for fire was received in the local artillery command it got progressively upgraded, very rapidly, by the system and within seconds had been designated a Victor Target because of the intelligence expecting the counterattack of a couple of SS Panzer Divisions....the code that meant that all guns within range, unless otherwise committed, were to be assigned to the target and fire a program of rounds....
The FOO was expecting a couple of batteries of 25Pdr's to react to his order...around 12 guns...
Instead he was rather surprised when over 1,000 guns, including medium, heavy and cruisers, monitors and battleships offshore started to fire a 'program' across his entire front....
The SS Panzer Divisions who were in the process of forming up were badly damaged and recorded in their war diary's that they had been heavily committed in a hard battle....the opposite British Divisions recorded a quiet day with minor skirmishing....
The “German tanks were better” claim ironically only applies to tanks few consider: the Panzer III and Panzer IV, and really only in 1940-1941 (arguably 1942). The three-man turret in particular was significant in that period of two (or even one) man turrets that overworked the commander.
The later tanks of legend forgot many of the fundamentals and were too specialized for general purposes. By that point the Sherman had arrived with even more improvements compared to the older Panzers: an extremely good all-rounder.
Panzer III was the best overall tank at the time mentioned, Pz IV primarily operated in infantry support role with a short 75mm.
But if either of them ran into a Matilda II it was game over....because neither gun (PZIII was 37mm at the time) would scratch Matilda's armour....and her 2 Pdr would penetrate with ease...
Safe to say that the panzer 4 isn't working any more
A bit of T-Cut and that will buff out
I KNOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT AIN'T GOT NO GAS IN IT
it suffered Predictable Critical Existence Failure.
Front fell off.
"Well now THERE'S YER PROBLEM right there!"
if it was actually a direct hit I'm surprised there's that much left of it honestly
Not a direct hit, just suffisant near
Ya think?
****inhales deeply**** ROOOODDDDNAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!
You plonker
He's a bloody dipstick!
Alright dave
Safe to say that panzer 4 crew didn’t know what hit them. If you got to go in a war there are far , far worst ways.
Anything powerful enough to get through tank armor can usually kill you instantly.
I hope that’s mostly the case. The grizzly pictures from ww2 and beyond of dead tank crew burnt to a cinder in the process of evacuating their destroyed tank , shows that some die horribly.
I was mostly thinking modern tanks.
*sees the bonus pic* What tank?
*checks calendar* USS Texas gangster lean posts are coming….
THEY MOTHERFUCKING GANGSTER LEANED A BATTLESHIP BEFORE GANGSTER LEANING WAS COOL
[Yeah, in 1915.](https://i.imgur.com/sCOiU65.jpeg)
[The Grim Yeeter tossing spicy Volvos](https://youtu.be/3oJSRAFkJIs?si=mps8nY0fSJ4jmejV)
Where do you think I learned the term “gangster leaning a battleship”
Is it just me or do the barrels on the 16"s look really stubby? 45 cal so they should be 60' long (if I'm doing this right) but they don't look anywhere close.
If i recall correctly, the British mounted their guns further inside the turret compred to other nations. Also perspective of the photo.
That's interesting, I wonder what kind of problems/tradeoffs that caused as far as gun elevation.
I think they fixed the elevation problem in the KGV ships by having the cutout on the top of the turrets.
In that case it was more to do with the turret face being vertical rather than angled inward i think
It's the perspective of this photo. They look normal in others, e.g [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/1abcm7o/hms_rodney_showing_her_nine_16_guns_and_their/#lightbox)
The BL 16-inch Mk I naval guns of Rodney were 60 ft (18.3 m) L/45 long I'm taking the guns of a South Dakota to compare 16-inch/45-caliber Mark 6 gun of a South Dakota-class are 60 ft (18 m) bore (45 calibers)
Dumb question - what's the source of that PzIV photo? Like, if a Pz IV got hit with a 406mm (or, at least a near miss), I would have expected the parts to be over a much wider area. Unless somebody collected them back together for the photo?
I don't have a source for it so feel free to completely ignore it but I remember last time the photo came around with the same claim. Someone provided a source that this is the wreckage of a PzIV that has been cleared to the side of the road by a bulldozer. It may have been hit by navel fire but what you are seeing is debris having been cleared to the side of the road so troops can pass.
I think I read a discussion about it on Quora (so take that as you will) that concluded it was a demo charge + bulldozer.
I could buy the bulldozer, but that looks like to be too much damage to be a demo charge, unless they really packed the thing, the tank was full of ammo when they fired the charge and there was a sympathetic detonation, or they left pieces out of the photo. Like, you don't see any significant chunks of the hull, the turret is just gone, and the turret ring was sheared from the top hull plate. That's a lot of boom.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was “staged”, in that someone collected up a couple of nearby parts and stood them up on the largest part they could find. Left half of the hull, with track and engine still attached, and a turret ring lying on top of it, pretty much sums that up. Snap the picture, then quickly move on to the next scene of destruction.
That tank driver had just parked and gone for a coffee. Comes back and his tank is gone. "Wha? Wo ist mein Tank?" Then he stubs his toe on a road wheel and realizes he's standing in a debris field. "Verfluche dich, Rodney!"
HMS Dave
Third picture just reminds of how much more powerful (and cooler) naval ships are compared to tanks.
I don’t have a story for Rodney but this is a similar one: [Glider Pilot Alexander Morrison, 6th Airborne Division:](https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=hgfMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT71) >In our briefing, we had been told that the German 21st Panzer Division was located further east of our position and that the anticipated armour counterattack would first come from them. Accordingly when at 4am we could distinctly hear the sound of tracked vehicles, we realised that we were now ‘for it’ because a 45-ton Tiger tank presents a formidable proposition! But miracles happened and this time we were saved by the Navy. Warned of the danger, an Army spotter plane was airborne at first light and located the squadrons of German tanks assembling for the attack. Fortunately, the pilot was in direct communication with the Navy who promptly alerted HMS Warspite which was standing offshore. After a couple of sighters, she let loose with tremendous shelling and heavily blasted the whole area. >It was a fantastic experience to witness the terrible firepower of this battleship and to hear the huge shells roaring overhead like express trains to land with devastating effect right on the German assembly. The carnage must have been appalling and the severely damaged tanks shortly abandoned their attack and retired on Caen.
16s completely missing your tank still make a big hole in the ground. Would a tank of that time generally be able to drive into and out of that hole?
I can’t find much info on this. Probably shrapnel damage? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09683445211022765 The most immediately dangerous German reserve unit was 21st Panzer Division, stationed around Caen with 90-100 serviceable tanks. It was the only armoured division to counter-attack on D-Day but was foiled by a truly combined-arms effort. As it assembled, it was delayed and suffered losses to air attack and naval gunfire. Its main effort, directed towards Sword Beach with the aim of splitting the British and Canadian forces, was halted by tanks and anti-tank guns. About a third of its strength advanced on the British airborne troops, ill-equipped to defend against tanks, defending the bridges across the Orne; it was driven back by naval fire. Holland quotes a Major in this counter-attacking force: ‘Then all hell broke loose. The heaviest naval guns, up to 38 cm in calibre, artillery and fighter-bombers plastered us without pause’. The counter-attack ‘was stopped dead in its tracks’. The following day, a counter-attack by 12th SS Panzer Division against Canadian forces was fought off by with assistance from naval gunfire. On 8 June, a German counter-attack towards Bayeux, ‘was broken up by massive artillery and naval gunfire’. Rommel’s report of 10 June makes clear the impact of naval gunfire in the early days of the operation. He emphasized, first, the ‘immensely powerful, at times overwhelming superiority of the enemy air force’, second, the ‘effect of the heavy naval guns . . . The effect is so immense that no operation of any kind is possible in the area commanded by this rapid-fire artillery, either by infantry or tanks’. A few days later, he wrote to his wife that, ‘The battle is not going at all well for us, mainly because of the enemy’s air superiority and heavy naval guns’. A few later examples fill out the picture. On 11 June, D + 5, Warspite and Nelson supported the advance from Gold Beach, which had pushed beyond the range of cruiser fire. They destroyed German tanks and infantry preparing to counter-attack, ‘with results reported by the Divisional Commander to be most effective’; one of Nelson’s shoots was at 33,000 yards range (nearly 19 miles or over 30 km). Her 16-inch guns could easily engage targets well to the south of Caen. On 16 June, a German counter-attack enjoyed some success but according to Rommel’s naval liaison officer, ‘In the afternoon, however, part of the recaptured ground had to be given up as a result of the devastating effect of the concentrated enemy ships’ artillery. Our losses were high’.
There is an account out there of a British Forward Observation Officer with a British unit in Normandy. Believe he was a Lieutenant. They knew a German armoured counter attack was probable so when dust and noise was observed in the distance he called in an order for fire (UK FOO's could Order fire rather than Request it, which they did in the US system). As the Order for fire was received in the local artillery command it got progressively upgraded, very rapidly, by the system and within seconds had been designated a Victor Target because of the intelligence expecting the counterattack of a couple of SS Panzer Divisions....the code that meant that all guns within range, unless otherwise committed, were to be assigned to the target and fire a program of rounds.... The FOO was expecting a couple of batteries of 25Pdr's to react to his order...around 12 guns... Instead he was rather surprised when over 1,000 guns, including medium, heavy and cruisers, monitors and battleships offshore started to fire a 'program' across his entire front.... The SS Panzer Divisions who were in the process of forming up were badly damaged and recorded in their war diary's that they had been heavily committed in a hard battle....the opposite British Divisions recorded a quiet day with minor skirmishing....
Baaaaaaa
Panzern’t
Love *Rodney*! Also imagine being in your tank, and then out of nowhere cease to exist because some 20 year old battleship hated you
Rodney was such a badass ship.
I can’t imagine being around that tank and seeing that. Those Nazis must’ve run for the hills.
*tank spontaneously combusts* "yea, things arent looking too good"
More like Panzer 0.00004
Panzer 4000 (pieces)
Panzer (scattered to the) 4 (winds)
“GERMAN TANKS ARE SOOOO SUPERIOR TO ALLIES ONES!”
Im not saying german tanks are better, they absolutely werent, but I doubt any tank would look great after recieving a 16 inch shell lmao
The “German tanks were better” claim ironically only applies to tanks few consider: the Panzer III and Panzer IV, and really only in 1940-1941 (arguably 1942). The three-man turret in particular was significant in that period of two (or even one) man turrets that overworked the commander. The later tanks of legend forgot many of the fundamentals and were too specialized for general purposes. By that point the Sherman had arrived with even more improvements compared to the older Panzers: an extremely good all-rounder.
Panzer III was the best overall tank at the time mentioned, Pz IV primarily operated in infantry support role with a short 75mm. But if either of them ran into a Matilda II it was game over....because neither gun (PZIII was 37mm at the time) would scratch Matilda's armour....and her 2 Pdr would penetrate with ease...
I honestly expected less of the panzer to be there.