Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All in the Mind? The psychological effect of Tiger Tanks and 88ís

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    88 shells had a different sound in flight than artillery rounds. Troops generally couldn't differentiate between artillery shells but could tell the higher velocity 88 shells apart. They could also tell the difference between mortar rounds and artillery. Very often they could hear the "thump" of mortars being fired too. They could tell the difference between Allied machineguns and the higher rate of fire German ones too.
    Yes, there was a low sounding Woomph to mortar shells as they came in. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    1. Officially the 33rd RM unit did not appear in Germany until May 45, so the KIA in April 45 is a mistake?

    2. 88mm's were relatively rare compared with standard 105 and 150 mm weapons. 105 and 150 were as accurate as 88 weapons, more lethal and more common.

    3. 88mm's were considered dangerous against the Matilda 2. It was the one weapon that could always combat said tank.

    88's are Nazi myth when it comes to true capability.
    Believe me, the 88 shells that came screaming in and burst in the air were no myth I assure you. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    the overwhelming majority of troops that landed in Normandy did not have combat experience with either 88mms or Tigers....
    Of course they didn't, because the majority of the first waves were made up of teens and twenties, first time out. I had only been in the Marines 10 months and I was not by myself I can tell you!! The old hands many from the middle east came in later in the day. You learned as you went along though! lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    1. Officially the 33rd RM unit did not appear in Germany until May 45, so the KIA in April 45 is a mistake?

    2. 88mm's were relatively rare compared with standard 105 and 150 mm weapons. 105 and 150 were as accurate as 88 weapons, more lethal and more common.

    3. 88mm's were considered dangerous against the Matilda 2. It was the one weapon that could always combat said tank.

    88's are Nazi myth when it comes to true capability.
    nick you are really beginning to **** me off, don't you read anything I say? Yes the 33rd as such did not get back in until April if I remember correctly but an advance party ( a company ) appeared in Belgium, having made the crossing by sea late in December 1944 and came under the command of the Army. ( I believe the local guy Was Canadian.) I was a infantry come SB Medic in that Company. So there was a unit of the 33rd that followed Army instructions in the latter part of action in Belgium and crossed the Rhine into Germany. What is so extraordinary in the part that I did not know the man that was killed? Particularly after 70 odd years, perhaps I knew him at the time, I do not know now. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    the overwhelming majority of troops that landed in Normandy did not have combat experience with either 88mms or Tigers....

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    1. Officially the 33rd RM unit did not appear in Germany until May 45, so the KIA in April 45 is a mistake?

    2. 88mm's were relatively rare compared with standard 105 and 150 mm weapons. 105 and 150 were as accurate as 88 weapons, more lethal and more common.

    3. 88mm's were considered dangerous against the Matilda 2. It was the one weapon that could always combat said tank.

    88's are Nazi myth when it comes to true capability.
    The solider killed in action is not at question here.
    The lethality of other weapons is not at question here.
    The relative numbers of artillery weapons are not at question here.

    Again, I must ask for proof, not opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    1. What an odd claim. I think the man said he did not know the soldier who was killed in action. Do you have proof to the contrary? If so, please produce it.

    2. The amount of fire by 88mm's relative to other artillery weapons does not disprove its lethality. Can you provide proof the 88mm was not lethal when used against our troops? For example, I don't think anyone was killed in the destruction of the M7 I posted about previously. However, it is a safe bet the crewmen thought the 88mm was damned lethal.
    1. Officially the 33rd RM unit did not appear in Germany until May 45, so the KIA in April 45 is a mistake?

    2. 88mm's were relatively rare compared with standard 105 and 150 mm weapons. 105 and 150 were as accurate as 88 weapons, more lethal and more common.

    3. 88mm's were considered dangerous against the Matilda 2. It was the one weapon that could always combat said tank.

    88's are Nazi myth when it comes to true capability.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    how could veterans distinguish between 88mm , 105mm, 150mm, mortars, infantry guns, super heavy, and the polygot of captured artillery pieces (Soviet, French, Czech, etc.) that equipped german forces in normandy?

    88mm units were used primarily as AA defense
    88 shells had a different sound in flight than artillery rounds. Troops generally couldn't differentiate between artillery shells but could tell the higher velocity 88 shells apart. They could also tell the difference between mortar rounds and artillery. Very often they could hear the "thump" of mortars being fired too. They could tell the difference between Allied machineguns and the higher rate of fire German ones too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cult Icon
    replied
    how could veterans distinguish between 88mm , 105mm, 150mm, mortars, infantry guns, super heavy, and the polygot of captured artillery pieces (Soviet, French, Czech, etc.) that equipped german forces in normandy?

    88mm units were used primarily as AA defense

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    There was only one KIA in the 33rd. Veterans remember the dead who fought by their side. Battalions are relatively small and like families, as if anyone who served would know. The first KIA name would be honoured, simply by being the first. LCM1 obviously knows the individual involved, especially since it was there only true casualty.

    The fact that a battalion was in combat, only had one KIA, and thought 88mm's were lethal, means 88 mm's were almost all bark. The amount of fire they contributed was relatively unimportant next to 105mm and 150mm weapon systems in killing our guys.
    1. What an odd claim. I think the man said he did not know the soldier who was killed in action. Do you have proof to the contrary? If so, please produce it.

    2. The amount of fire by 88mm's relative to other artillery weapons does not disprove its lethality. Can you provide proof the 88mm was not lethal when used against our troops? For example, I don't think anyone was killed in the destruction of the M7 I posted about previously. However, it is a safe bet the crewmen thought the 88mm was damned lethal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    After a few hours of thought, I decided there is no connection between the KIA and the 88's effectiveness.

    Why do think there is?
    There was only one KIA in the 33rd. Veterans remember the dead who fought by their side. Battalions are relatively small and like families, as if anyone who served would know. The first KIA name would be honoured, simply by being the first. LCM1 obviously knows the individual involved, especially since it was there only true casualty.

    The fact that a battalion was in combat, only had one KIA, and thought 88mm's were lethal, means 88 mm's were almost all bark. The amount of fire they contributed was relatively unimportant next to 105mm and 150mm weapon systems in killing our guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Exactly, if the bloke did die at that time, it could have been in any manner! There were two casualties when we were in Belgium neither of them fatal. They were what in WW1 they called 'Blighty wounds' and that was about it. Don't know the other bloke at all. Our company were the only ones that saw any face to face action out of the 33rd and we were used by the army as support if needed. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    While a single KIA proves that 88mm's are all bark and almost no bite at best, ....
    After a few hours of thought, I decided there is no connection between the KIA and the 88's effectiveness.

    Why do think there is?

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    While a single KIA proves that 88mm's are all bark and almost no bite at best, ....
    It does?

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    I was completely unaware of the incident that is not so remarkable at such times and to connect the 88 to it was the height of stupidity. Whoever the man was he was not of my company. I thought I had explained the 33rds activities fairly clearly, the destination of the 33rd was Kiel to take part in the occupation particularly the docks etc: We were in a Dakota heading for Kiel when the radio operator came back to us and said 'The war is over' and even that was a ball up it did not end until 24 hours later. Finally a bit of advice, take every bit of so called official documents you have ever read with a 'Pinch of salt' somewhere down the line their was someone that was doing a little bit of adapting to make it look better. lcm1

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X