World War II : Battle of Bulge Dec 1944 : Sherman Tank

[King Tiger]

Thank you so much for posting this. I learnt a lot just from the thread

Can I ask,in your opinion, what are the places that are worth going in Europe for history of WW2? In Band of Brothers, there was a place where they were caught out in the winter for a long time, before the reinforcements arrived, a pines forest kinda...is that the place you went to??

I am dreaming for the time being( I know) but I like to visit the concentration camp as well one day:embrass:

Thanks in advance

Hi davee78

Thanks.
In my opinion, the very best places I would want to go and feel the worth in Europe would be
Kursk and Stalingrad (known as Volvograd in present day).
It is the greatest tank battle and largest battles ever fought during World War 2, involve millions of men from both sides,
which really exhaust the Axis power for domination of Europe.

Yes, the winter battle that the Band of Brothers caught in was at Bastogne, which is also the place I went.
The concentration camp is at Austria.
Believe there is bigger one in Poland, but not sure if it is open to public.

May your dream come true.

 

[gymak90]

Thank you so much for posting this. I learnt a lot just from the thread

Can I ask,in your opinion, what are the places that are worth going in Europe for history of WW2? In Band of Brothers, there was a place where they were caught out in the winter for a long time, before the reinforcements arrived, a pines forest kinda...is that the place you went to??

I am dreaming for the time being( I know) but I like to visit the concentration camp as well one day:embrass:

Thanks in advance

Although the question is not directed to me, I do feel giving some suggestions.:bsmilie:

I recommend Berlin. The city is now very modernised, and the government's condemnation of Nazis, caused the elimination of lots Nazi-related things (buildings and flags etc). But you can find many stuffs in their museums. You can visit Hitler's bunker too.

My personal wish is to go Normandy, France. D-Day until now, is the largest ever amphibious landing operation, and it took place at Normandy.

It was actually surprising to me that Sherman tanks could fight against the Nazis. The Nazis had far more superior tanks, like the Tiger and Panther. But of course the war isn't all about tanks, and thankfully, it's all over.

 

[King Tiger]

Although the question is not directed to me, I do feel giving some suggestions.:bsmilie:

I recommend Berlin. The city is now very modernised, and the government's condemnation of Nazis, caused the elimination of lots Nazi-related things (buildings and flags etc). But you can find many stuffs in their museums. You can visit Hitler's bunker too.

My personal wish is to go Normandy, France. D-Day until now, is the largest ever amphibious landing operation, and it took place at Normandy.

May you dream come true gymak90
Remember to post photos when you happen to go there.

It was actually surprising to me that Sherman tanks could fight against the Nazis. The Nazis had far more superior tanks, like the Tiger and Panther. But of course the war isn't all about tanks, and thankfully, it's all over.

Like the Battle of Hurtgen Forest, however, I suspect the US military wanna to have a low profile on the total US Sherman tanks loss during the European theatre.

Estimate records show about 6500 Sherman tanks destroyed in combat.
But I personally felt the figure would be much higher, around 8000.

 

[davee78]

May you dream come true gymak90
Remember to post photos when you happen to go there.





Like the Battle of Hurtgen Forest, however, I suspect the US military wanna to have a low profile on the total US Sherman tanks loss during the European theatre.

Estimate records show about 6500 Sherman tanks destroyed in combat.
But I personally felt the figure would be much higher, around 8000.

my goodness, are you a history teacher or Prof:bigeyes: ...I saw the HMS belfast photos as well, I learnt something again...that battleships and cruisers of that size was still in use (IN Korea) after WW2 ...I thought ships of these sizes saw their last in WW2. :embrass:

Actually, can I ask something again...

Any idea why battleships and cruisers are no longer the main arsenal of navies these days??
Other than the fact that they are big visible targets, but I suppose the range of those big guns definitely better than the current destroyers that most navies have?

 

[King Tiger]

my goodness, are you a history teacher or Prof:bigeyes: ...I saw the HMS belfast photos as well, I learnt something again...that battleships and cruisers of that size was still in use (IN Korea) after WW2 ...I thought ships of these sizes saw their last in WW2. :embrass:

Actually, can I ask something again...

Any idea why battleships and cruisers are no longer the main arsenal of navies these days??
Other than the fact that they are big visible targets, but I suppose the range of those big guns definitely better than the current destroyers that most navies have?

No lah, I am just a crazy military Enthusiast who crave to know more and crave to see more real things in life.

OT abit.
Prior to it, is the British air attack on Italian navy at Taranto,
after which is the surprise attack at Pearl Harbour, follow by the sinking of British Battleship Prince of Wales and Repluse (the 1st first capital ships to be sunk while fully operational at sea).
Naval commanders have come to realise that the days of big guns and battleships are over.
The era of aircraft and aircraft carriers have begin.(due to their ability to deliver impact at longer range and airpower)

 

[luntut]

Naval commanders have come to realise that the days of big guns and battleships are over.
The era of aircraft and aircraft carriers have begin.(due to their ability to deliver impact at longer range and airpower)

and not to mention you cant put GPS guidance systems into artillery projectiles, but you can put them in missiles, giving them pin point accuracy. And it takes a LOT of crew to serve a 16inch pounder like that. cant remember the exact numbers, but I think its bout close to a 100 men to a 3 gun turret. guns make a much louder bang, but missiles gives a much louder BOOM. BUT of course. its how and where its being used. there are still big guns found in big navies even up to today.

missiles, nice easy and clean. =) and we are juz talking bout firepower here.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

thanks for the pictures! very informative...very epic... :think:

(yes, i'm a crazy military enthusiast too :sweat

 

[King Tiger]

thanks for the pictures! very informative...very epic... :think:

(yes, i'm a crazy military enthusiast too :sweat

Thanks Daedalus Trent.
From your avatar, can see you are a die hard military enthusiast.

 

[gymak90]

(yes, i'm a crazy military enthusiast too :sweat

Haha! Me too!

 

[King Tiger]

Guys, you should update your details here.

Military Enthusiast Fall in.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331499

 

[Daedalus Trent]

Thanks Daedalus Trent.
From your avatar, can see you are a die hard military enthusiast.

Damn! Now that was an obvious giveaway :sweat:

 

[gymak90]

and not to mention you cant put GPS guidance systems into artillery projectiles, but you can put them in missiles, giving them pin point accuracy. And it takes a LOT of crew to serve a 16inch pounder like that. cant remember the exact numbers, but I think its bout close to a 100 men to a 3 gun turret. guns make a much louder bang, but missiles gives a much louder BOOM. BUT of course. its how and where its being used. there are still big guns found in big navies even up to today.

missiles, nice easy and clean. =) and we are juz talking bout firepower here.

True that missiles have pinpoint accuracy, but it is electronic and has a flight path. Which means it can be decoyed or intercepted.
For guns and shells, there is no way to intercept them. Also there are less costly. 16-inch guns in the past, can bombard a coast with practically no casualty from the attacking ship.

 

[bigbird17]

man........ i hope u are nt in the army!!! haha

 

[King Tiger]

man........ i hope u are nt in the army!!! haha

Well, serve in NS before. :sweat:

 

[KangS]

True that missiles have pinpoint accuracy, but it is electronic and has a flight path. Which means it can be decoyed or intercepted.
For guns and shells, there is no way to intercept them. Also there are less costly. 16-inch guns in the past, can bombard a coast with practically no casualty from the attacking ship.

Not entirely true anymore. There are ways to stop an artillery shell, in fact there are even ways to stop an incoming tank round at 2500 ft/s. The Isreali defence industry touts its 'Trophy' defence system as being capable of doing it. Heck, the australian 'metalstorm' system is even capable of 2 million rounds a minute... In sufficient calibre sizes, I don't think even a mosquito has a chance if deployed correctly...

In the modern context of long-range ballistic projectiles, 16-inches, heck even the mighty Musashi-class 18-inch guns are obsolete. There are in development in Europe 6-8 inch, long calibre howitzers capable of potentially 100km and more range. You don't need such big guns anymore to reach such distances. Also, smart, fragmented, proximity activated payloads are way more effective compared to solid artillery shells.

Oh ya, don't forget, on a naval bombardment in the traditional context like in the Marshal's and Guadacanal, or most recently off the coast of Iraq via the USS Missouri, you have no foe. But in the modern context, at the 40-50km range, you're a practical sitting duck for modern naval missiles. You have less than 2 minutes from a missile from that range! Such 'battleships' no longer have a suitable position in the modern naval arena. Other than perhaps 'clout'... ?