WW2 Warfare Discussion thread

Air-cooled MGs aren't designed to be water cooled. No pouring water on them directly. If needed, in dire need you must band some wet material around the barrel - it will decrease temperature ( because part of heat energy will 'jump' onto the material, so material will be affected with high temperature) without unnecesary risk. Same thing comes to big guns, however I can't imagine 88s barrel glowing red  :o

There are different types of barrels? I know the inside might be different but I just thought all of them were made of steel :P

I have a Q. Why was the Nashorn made? It's basically an 88mm gun on wheels. But so is the Tiger and King Tiger :P. So why make it if its so delicate and easy to destroy?

And IDK which came first, the Jagdpanzer or Hetzer. But why was the latter made if both tanks did the same thing (destroy allied tanks :P) Its seems redundant. I mean I under stand if its a modification (maybe hetzer is better than Jagdanzer) but then why keep making the inferior one ???

The same goes for the Jagdpanther and Tiger. Why make the other when the previous one used the same exact gun and its armor was still effective :P

Limited amount of resources is the only guess I can give you.

the hetzer (wikipedia)
was  made of the 38(t) tank which was captured by the Germans in  Czechoslovakia. the hetzer was a gapfiller. id did the job but it was very cramped inside and when it faced bigger tanks it pretty much was no match for them

The tank destroyers/self-propelled guns were a way to upgun outdated tank designs cheaply, to increase their effectiveness and change their role. Some examples are:

Panzer III - Stug III
Panzer IV - Stug IV
            - Jagdpanzer IV
Panzer 38(t) - Hetzer
                - Marder III
Hotchkiss/Panzer II - Marder I (GWagon)/Marder II

Often, outdated tanks could have their turret replaced with a turretless superstructure that allowed for a much larger gun. This was a cheap way to make old tanks effective again. They weren't built new from factories (the Jagdpanther/Jagdtiger/Elefant are probably exceptions) but were rather taken back to factories to have turrets removed and superstructures/massive guns added.

Last edited October 23, 2011 at 3:51 AM by GodlikeDennis

and some of those gapfillers proved to be very effective
Wittman, the most succesfull tank ace of WW2 started in a Stug III
actually i think the CoH Wehrmacht is weird cause Stug III was way more common than Stug IV :D

In a movie I saw, US soldiers threw stones to make mines explode, can it work in real life? Because most of mines I know (and in that movie) was buried.

Yes, my brother is a pioneer in the Bundeswehr and he showed me a book with a lot of mines (all types). Anti infantry & Anti Tank: Almost every mine had the text: To defuse, trigger the mine from save distance by shooting or throwing something against it.

I.E. Butterfly mines they are defused by shooting at them.

Why the German flamthrowers wear goggles? Because of the "flash" from flame or the heat? If the heat then they have to wear a mask (with goggles in it) :P
By the way, the goggles with mask used in Africa I saw in games and movies are kinda... scary (and cool :D), is the goggles come with other stuffs like cloth and backpack all the time or some soldiers got it, some didn't?
I just found out the iron canister the grenadiers carry behind have a gas mask in it, imagine a blob of gas-masked grenadiers :P

Dann88 wrote:
Why the German flamthrowers wear goggles? [...]

Cause a flamethrower is very hot :p. Try to sit very close to a campfire and stare at it. I don't think you are able to face it for long and of course it was also as a protection.

Last edited October 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM by walki1

walki1 wrote:

Dann88 wrote:
Why the German flamthrowers wear goggles? [...]

Cause a flamethrower is very hot :p. Try to sit very close to a campfire and stare at it. I don't think you are able to face it for long and of course also as a protection.

i belive we call that a "good point"

If it's hot then just a goggles will not enough, just wear mask with goggles then.

Never had the effect that your eyes hurted after you sat next to a campfire but your face didn't hurt then :P.

i think also they wore masks because breathing burning gasoline fumes
isnt too good on the ol' lungs.

Neither is gunpowder :P

stealthattack1 wrote:
i think also they wore masks because breathing burning gasoline fumes
isnt too good on the ol' lungs.

Neither is most of the crap that soldiers were breathing. Breathing gas was the least of their worries.

After lurking some pages, Ive was surprised too see the Soviets and the Finish actually had their own battles. Were the Finns on the axis or allied side on? or were they just defending their land and then went neutral?

Ever heard about the winter war? XD

They were on the axis side. Partly? XD Not allied really, more like - we are fighting the same enemy lets help each other out? <3

Fun fact is that the finnish fought for a little time against the germans!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War

sommarkatze pretty much summed it up. soviets fought finns when the soviet union and germany were still allied, and the finns used guerilla warfare to wear down the red army.
they were defending their land.

Hey guys. If you've ever seen the movie Enemy at the gates, you know that each Soviet conscript got either a gun or ammo and they charged at the enemy.

My Q is did this really happen ???. It seems so........unorthodox to me :P. And if it really did happen how often and when did it stop/start. Was this tactic implemented during the final days of the war ???

Also did conscripts ever get bayonets? It would seem so much more effecient when charging :P

In addition why don't soldiers ever leave their bayonets on their rifle. In the movies you always see them fumbling with their knife and then they get beat to death :-X. Why don't they just leave it there :P?

Last edited October 31, 2011 at 8:39 PM by Fishhunterx

Fishhunterx wrote:
Hey guys. If you've ever seen the movie Enemy at the gates, you know that each Soviet conscript got either a gun or ammo and they charged at the enemy.

My Q is did this really happen ???. It seems so........unorthodox to me :P. And if it really did happen how often and when did it stop/start. Was this tactic implemented during the final days of the war ???

Also did conscripts ever get bayonets? It would seem so much more effecient when charging :P

In addition why don't soldiers ever leave their bayonets on their rifle. In the movies you always see them fumbling with their knife and then they get beat to death :-X. Why don't they just leave it there :P?

Here is what I gather due to reading and hearsay. I wasn't actually in the war so don't quote me :P

From what I read, yes, at some points the lowest ranking divisions often had to divi up their supply of ammo and guns like you described simply because of lack of arms. It's sort of exemplified in movies more so than I think it actually took place though. (This is the point of Conscripts the 4 men have rifles the others have ammo)

It would have been early war when it had happened. Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad often targeted their industries meant for making such weapons and if those are knocked out you have lack of supply.

Bayonets are pictured in propaganda photos: Soviets did not use bayonets.

If it were me and I was on the ground I would try to stab him in the foot before lunging at him with intent to kill. He'd be in a massive amount of pain and he would also find it extremely hard to move if you place your stab right. Then you can finish him off.

Well, bayonets proved to be very ineffective in WWI.
I read somewhere that not even half a percent of injuries taken in combat were caused by bayonets in the trenches of 1914-18.

In WWII, they were more often used for parades and as symbols than a real combat weapon (well, in Japanese melee attacks perhaps...)

Think about it, in close combat a rifle with a knife becomes pretty bulky and is repelled easily. You are much more agile with a knife or the good old rusty spade, striking faster and more accurate.

... bayonets look awesome though ;D

From what I've gathered, bayonets were first introduced to give soldiers of the line an effective weapon against charging cavalry. Also, given the nature of the muskets soldiers used back then (think 1700-1850ish) they fought in the packed battle lines we know from the Napoleonic wars and such. When charging such a tight line of soldiers a bayonet will be effective (hell, it's really hard to miss an enemy when your running at a wall of them).
However, when muskets became replaced by rifles, the need for close formations deminished, lowering the effectiveness of hack, slash, and stab weapons like bayonets.

Its absolutely nothing they did the entire war. Only like wizard said. Early war at desperate times like Leningrad and Stalingrad. Sadly many people get the picture of that this was the tactic of the red army the entire war XD

I have another q. Why did the US army favor the use of the M1 Garand over the M1 Carbine. Lets compare. Correct me if I'm wrong.

-The M1 Carbine was lighter weight wise. Thus the name Carbine. Some variants even had a foldable stock

-They both used the same .306 ammo so its not like one has a stronger bullet ::)

-I might be wrong byt the Garand my have performed better at long range but not by a significant amount

-The M1 Carbine had a 15 round magazine that could be taken out at any time while the M1 Garand had a 8 round clip that couldn't be removed and made a distinct ping noise, alerting the enemy you're out of ammo or at least you're reloading. That means the M1 had nearly double the ammo. And you could use a strriper clip to reload the same magazine fast

-The Garand might have been more money to make. Not 100% sure

-Both guns were accurate and semi automatic

-Yes the M1 Garand had a butt stock allowing you to hit ppl in close quarters but the M1 carbine could come with one too. The M1 Carbine could come with or w/o a foldable stock if Im correct

So why use the M1 Garand ??? Im jusr curious :P. Not trying to de fame the gun Patton called: "The best military innovation ever devised" Something like that :P

I think Garand had better accuracy since it got better mechanism and longer barrel. The structure of a rifle give it easier to aim at long range. Oh! Actually Garand and M1 carbine don't use the same ammo, same caliber but different other specs.
And they aleady produced alot of Garand when the M1 began its production. :P
This part is my guess: when in close range, a lightly wounded by gun-fire soldier will fight more crazier because of basic instict (fight to live) so M1 carbine sometimes could make things worse. Angry Japanese soldier is the best example. :P

If you're crazy at close range and a firing madly at least you'll have more bullets to fire with in the M1 Carbine than M1 Garand ;D. But I see your point :P

I have a question. In alot of WW2 movies you see soldiers firing AT guns(like a PAK 40) and for some reason, they dont see to do much damage. In fact they seem to absorb the shot and then shot and destroy the AT gun  :o. Is this realistic(in that AT guns dont do much damage) or do movies simply do ths in order to be more dramatic ???

Also did anyone ever figure out why the M1 Carbine didn't replace the M1 Garand ???

More than likely not Fish I think its just to make the scene look more epic.

What film/films?
And what tank?

And as for the M1 Carbine it received mixed views during its usage, apparently it was mainly well praised but in a few battle, after action and even post war investigations some M1's were found to be faulty in various ways such as penetration, and stopping power. This could have been a reason but what I think is more likely is the costs of the rifles, as far as I know the M1 Garand is cheaper to produce than the M1 Carbine.

Well I was watching the movie Stalingrad and the AT guns didn't penetrate immediately. After like 3 or 4 shots the T-34 was halted. In a video clip from another WW2 movie(not sure what the name was) the guys fired an AT gun at a Panzer III IIRC and it kept moving. And in the movie The Breast Frotress the SU team fired a AT gun twice at the side of a Panzer III and it didn't die. And I think there was 1 more movie where this happened. Then again I haven't watched that many WW2 movies so I wouldn't know if it happened again.

BTW when Tanks take heavy rounds (lets say a Flak 88 shot hit a Sherman), do they explode, or do the just sorta sit there dead. And when shots do penetrate, do they explode inside the tank, smash and destroy something important, or do they act like a large bullet in the tank and kill the crew? I never really understood how rounds killed tanks or their crew.

Last edited January 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM by Fishhunterx

What AT guns are used in the films? Because it would depend on various factors include the Gun, Distance, Round etc.

Well I suppose it would depend on what round it was and where it hit, if it was to ignite the munitions then it would definitely explode much like what happend to Micheal Wittman aka the Black Baron, a round ignited the munitions and blew the entire turret of the Tiger tank right off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wittmann_Tiger_007.jpg

Fuel/Munitions would make it explode and of course the type of round.

A Flak 88 round if it penetrated which it more than likely would, would more than likely make the tank explode if it was a HEAT round and possibly if it was an AP round depending on exactly where abouts it hit.

Honestly I dont know what type of round was used. The soldier in "Stalingrad" didn't specify and the other 2 films were russian :P. But thank you for responding :D

Do tanks normally explode or do they just stop ??

Nice photo btw. Any soldiers near that tank must have been surprised ;D

Last edited January 17, 2012 at 12:54 AM by Fishhunterx

I don't know this personally but I think in most cases that the Tank will explode or at least catch fire and burn destroying most of the internal controls, but in other cases the tank will just be knocked out, or abandoned by its crew.

Some tanks were just abandoned after the crew had ran out of munitions. Though they should have really destroyed the tanks to prevent the enemy from capturing them.

Hey fish on the rifle thing.the garand shoots a 30 06 round long range heavy round very accurate the carbine fires a 30 cal round lighter weight not as long range.Some sniper rifles used the 30 06  to give you an idea just a little info.

This sounds kinda dumb but how come the tank crew didn't just drive back to a munitions depot. I mean, I know it wasn't to convienitant and often times they were in the middle of a battle but it sounds better than running around with MP40's (which were commonly used by tank crews IIRC) and finding out that a bunch of tommies are driving your tiger tank.

And how were tank shells brought to the battlefield? By truck? And how many shells did tanks normally carry?

BTW TY bangalor. I didn't realize the rounds weight was different

If it's a movie then it could be affect by the principle of the evil marksmanship :P. Wiki it for more information.
Trust me, I saw a soviet movie that a guy with PTRD kill 2 Pz III with 2 shots :P. The fate of the tanks in movie is base on the decision of director or his crew not the AT's crew :P
If a Flak 88 shot hit a Sherman, there are lot of chance it will burn, explode or just being sit there dead base on various things. BUT the ammo usually explode on impact, rarely not. And most of tank's crew died because of explosion (sometimes burned to death and rarely died because of the round itself).
Become a soldier and you will know how the tanks have their ammo ;D. From ww2 until now, the army always setup various small supply depots along the advance or retreat so when soldiers and vehicles out of supply they will go there and get it. More comfortable is the supply will be carried to the front but very rarely.

when a round hits a tank, depending on the type of tank, it wont always explode immediately unless hit by something, huge (anything 150mm and above at at at a medium velocity, like that of an isu152) or if hitting the ammunition inside the tank (which wasnt easy when firing head on at a tank). shermans/ panzerIV/ panther all had a 75% chance of brewing up, aka catching fire, and afterwards ammunition would start to explode (later wet storage shermans had a much less chance of brewing up). so the perceptions in the movie is somewhat accurate, there are stories of tanks such as KV's and shermans being able to drive out of danger if hit in a non vital spot, even if the hit penetrated.

it also depended on the type of round that hit the tank. if the round had a small amount of HE filling in it (which early german and british tanks did), they would have a much better chance at setting the tank on fire or causing a explosion. HEAT rounds and regular AP rounds have a less likely chance than an HE filled AP shell

What is "wet storage". Did they litterally kept rounds wet? Or dd they have like a tank of water on stand by?

Fishhunterx wrote:
What is "wet storage". Did they litterally kept rounds wet? Or dd they have like a tank of water on stand by?

the rounds were kept in cases in the floor of the tank, which was surrounded by water. the water kept the rounds from going off most of the time when hit

LOL the rounds were actually kept wet

But didn't that water get everywhere? And since loaders constantly pulled out rounds, didn't that water get everywhere, screwing up the tanks internals ??

no not like that. the rounds were kept in a dry crate, with the crate and its contents being dry. surrounding the compartment was water, so that way the water did not get everywhere

I did actually not know about the water. Love this forum! :D
However there were bigger problems than water splashing around! There was smoke from all the gunpowder, crowded ( Like BIG TIME) you dont see almost litteraly anything on the outside (thats why you never attack without infantry support :>). I read from an relative who were in the tank corps that they actually had a guy dying because he was choked to death by the smokes! ( the fan wasent working propearly!)

And why they didnt go back to reload ? Well. They did, but you were an easy target retreating with no rounds to defend yourself with XD So I guess sometimes they abonned the tank in hope of getting back to the supply lines and get the news - we dont have any new tanks for you. So they could chill and relax for the rest of the day. I know I would XD

I have another question. By the end of WW2, did the M3 Grease Gun sort of phase out the M1 Thompson or were both still being made? Also did either gun see action after WW2?

both the Thompson and the greasgun saw some action after world war 2, mostly during the korean war. the m3 was intended to replace the thompson around1944-45, but its production rate was not high enough to replace all thompsons, so thompsons continued to be produced and both of them saw use side by side

Hey guys. I found out this really cool video. It shows how naplam was invented for military puroses during WW2. B/C of bats ;D. Just watch the whole thing to see what Im talking about ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcpdtcRLeVY&feature=g-vrec&context=G2a84243RVAAAAAAAAAA

BTW if you wanna see a V2 rocket explosion see this video. Skip to 4:20 if u want :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHXTMn6cO2w&feature=BFa&list=ULCMANuNAFlDU&lf=like-suggest

Last edited January 18, 2012 at 3:45 AM by Fishhunterx

The greasegun and Thompson aint in the US armoury this days. However some troops use them still today. Mostly guerillas and such but! I got a friend whos dad are from SouthAmerica somewhere, and when he did his army duty in early 2000 he shoot both Greasegun and thompsons! ( I dont think they were actually STANDART arment but some people got them!)

German fighter Aces are btw like the coolest shit ever!

nowadays cheap ak-47s are the cheapest and eaisiest to get. thats what the gangs use, thats what the drug lords use, and thats what some countries still use. if some troops are still using thompsons, they will get pwned.

i was watching a show about the thompson where a modern day state patrol guy carried one in his cruiser instead of like a shotgun or AR

Last edited January 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM by DrRockzo1986

AK-47s has signifcant recoil. Grease gun doesn't. And I think the thompson had a significant amount of recoil too. So AK isn't necessarily better :P