rubber skirt was what made the sherman funnies float in the water on DDay landings anyway for the British unit ones the American army ones all sunk as they were released too far from the beaches and the rough waves flooded them and they sank.
Printable View
rubber skirt was what made the sherman funnies float in the water on DDay landings anyway for the British unit ones the American army ones all sunk as they were released too far from the beaches and the rough waves flooded them and they sank.
The Brits called used the name Hobart's Funnies for the DD and a number of other tanks, after Royal Engineer Maj-Gen. Percy Hobart. The yanks called the Sherman Duplex Drive (Sherman DD) the Sherman Donald Ducks.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartm58
The big problem at Omaha with the launching of the Sherman DD too far out (as many as 3 miles in rough seas) was seen as cowardice by some British destroyers looking on as the event unfolded.
Of the 29 Sherman DD launched by the 741st Tank Regiment 27 sank, the main problem was that the commanders were told to steer towards a particular church steeple, with the strong currents present at the beach the tanks were carried east and as the commanders tried to maintain a heading towards the steeple they put their beam to the swell and waves. The sinkings came as the long sides didn't have the same strength as the bow and stern and the floatation skirts collapsed sinking the tanks. The same scenario happens with surf boats, while they keep the waves at their stern they can ride the waves into the shore, if they put their beam into the wave they get swamped.
Had the tank commanders kept their heading straight towards the shore many of the tanks would have survived.
My Dad told me that in Vietnam they were doing a river crossing in a M113 and the crew forgot to put some type of fording board in the correct position and carrier went to the bottom. It was a mad rush to get out of the sinking vehicle.
Yes there is a board on the front over the engine hatch that needs to be swung out so the hull planes on top of the water. Without the board deployed the bow wave pushes up the sloped front of the hull and the whole machine dives under the waves. :eek:
http://www.defence.gov.au/army/awma_...ges/M113A1.jpg
Not that this variant the "Fire Support Vehicle" with a cast steel Saladin turret would be capable of swimming.
The main reason the M113 was able to swim was because it pumped the water out as quickly as it came in and the hull displaced just enough water for the thing to float. Overload it or have the bilge pumps fail and it quickly became a submarine.
My old veh at 2 cav was called AQUANOUGHT for a very good reason found the bottom of jervis bay, someone drove it off the ramp of the tabrook a little to fast:wasntme: once water is over the air intake it gets sucked in to fast for the bilge pumps:D it was an MRV with a scorpian turret they had more floatation added to the front
the M113 properly prepared is totally water proof.
The biggest leaks in any of the OSS ones at 1AR used to be the door handle in the ramp and 15015 didnt even leak there.
The M113 s have come a long way since I drove them. I saw a refitted one at the S of A a while back and it had almost all the things the boffins promised to us in the early 90s. It was also a shock to see all the kit / tech we used ,to be in the museum on display. Theres a set of mine rollers looking just like the day we uncrated them out side SEQT hangers. Put them on a panzer and quickly realized that you can go fowards but not backwards with them on, I bet the gouges in the concreate are still there.
All things aside I still think that M1A1 rebuilds that we bought as a MBT were a dud deal !.
Please dont jump on and rave about it, unless you have lived in the shadow of the tank regiment. Uninformed comment only cheapens the argument.
Not many people will be taking part in your conversation then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly
The M1 deal also came with offroad tankers to keep them supplied with fuel:D other than fuel use they arnt to bad:o oh and crossing some of our bridges out back they are over weight
Ill comment, I lived at 1 armd for a while.
Lotz-A,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
It is not a matter of how many times did the Leopards need to cross a river when in service...it is a matter of....they could.
The ADF Abrams can't. There is an operational need to be able to cross gaps. The ADF should only ever be looking at deployment under their own command. If so, make sure all the tools are in the tool box.