Surviving a tank bailout.

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TheVolskinator]

Quick! A Hellcat fired an APCR round into the glacis plate of your Panther--and it penetrated!

What was the general success rate of making it out of a damaged or enflamed tank in WW2? Assume at the ammunition is properly stored, you're fairly well trained, and that this just involves 'medium' or common tanks; Shermans, Cromwells, P4s, Panthers, possibly american TDs and other oddities. Also take into account of effects on the crew, such as cuncussion and death if it happened to be an APHE shell, shrapnel from your own armor as well as the shell, exploding ammunition even if it was properly stored. Crewmates were regularly dismembered or turned into paste on the wall (literally), not to mention lit on fire and left burning, so also take into account the fact that your tank commander (example) with only half a body is trying a frenzied claw out of the tank, in front of everyone else--theres a good chance youre getting gore dripped on you and that when he dies, he falls down on top of you, probably driving you nuts and further delaying a timely escape.

Ignore russian tanks as they were poorly built deathtraps that were cramped and oh so hard to escape--plus they werent famous for their comforable interiors and high survival rates .

[Mister Schmidt]

Depends entirely on shell type, where it penetrated, if it hit anything, and if the Commander deemed it necessary to escape. For the Axis tanks, unless it was something like a Tiger which they would want to keep intact for later rescue, they would most likely fight to the death.

[brn4meplz]

Depends alot on the tanks, but the Majority of the crew almost always made it out alive.

If for instance a Hellcat hit a Panther and the Panther managed to catch fire the crew can easily bail out as the engine is located far enough back that the crew would likely only suffer smoke inhalation and maybe minor burns.

It's also not odd to see accounts of Sherman crews who had 5-6 tanks knocked out from under them. Similar stories with German tanks crews.

Tank shells that fight other tanks don't actually explode. They pierce Armour through kinetic delivery. Even HEAT rounds are a form of shaped charge that is intended to simply punch a cone of superheated plasma through the armour.


Now if something like the Petard on an AVRE were to hit a tank it's highly likely the crew would be almost entirely dead or severely wounded to not make it to an aid station. The Petard Mortar is a HESH round which flattens on impact and delivers it's energy over a wider area. HESH rounds cause a massive amount of spalling inside the crew compartments, Much more then an AP round would cause.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Also both sides were known to shoot tank crews upon bailout

[brn4meplz]

they would most likely fight to the death.

False.

German tankers were valued for their experience and skills. There is no such situation where fighting to the death is worth if it the tank becomes a mobility kill. If an attack was withdrawn and the tank was unable to follow the crew would sabatoge the vehicle and withdraw to fight again.

[NightRain]

Depends entirely on shell type, where it penetrated, if it hit anything, and if the Commander deemed it necessary to escape. For the Axis tanks, unless it was something like a Tiger which they would want to keep intact for later rescue, they would most likely fight to the death.

wrong "OUTTA THE TANK imma self-destruct it" and they pull the pin and the detonator inside the tank goes boom to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. Actually most tanks were destroyed so that they could only be salvaged.

Finnish had a interesting way of aquiring tanks though. Once the crew was dead they examinated the tank, tank driver hops in and drives the tank away, they recolour the Red star with a black swastika and adds 4 additional members- refuels and back to the front line. Everything Ruskis left was taken and used. should you leave a mg behind it'd be shooting you in the end. Think it EIRR like. Finns would be like volksgrenadiers. Everything left behind will be taken and used. Haha. Even weapons. Ppsh 41 guy gets sniped. Someone rushes in "MAH TOY". Same with their Semi-automatic rifles. Everything was always handy. Why would anyone want a bolt action rifle when there is a semi-automatic rifle right next to you? Etc.

[skaffa]

Some of you might have seen it alrdy. Its a real tank fight ww2 where u see the crew trying to get out after being hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2JY5xfBx8A

[TheVolskinator]

Thats actually what I based this upon, as the Pershing shot the other tank with an AP shell--I never said the shell would explode, I know my shit. All tank shells, even those that were strictly AP, would 'explode'; fragmenting after piercing the tank, and showering hot plasma, shrapnel, and parts of the tank all over the crew. It was a horrific way to die if it was a solid, devastating hit on the tank. HE shells from, for example, the IS-122 and IS-152 might barely damage the tank, but the concussion would literally liquidate the crew--hard to escape when you're a pile of guts. Schmidt, HA, history fail. No, American crews were far more likely to stay and fight to the death (revenge for buddies killed and so on) or just run like hell, wheras German crews' raw discipline had them dis-mount all of the tank's surviving MGs and fight on-foot if possible. From North Africa to the streets of Berlin, the WM crews wouldnt stupidly fight to the death--however, american infantry confronted with up to 3 MGs, an MP40, and at least 5 Lugers (spread among 4-6 crew members) suddenly popping out of a tank would definately be taken aback.

[Sachaztan]

Shermans were called "tommy cookers" for a reason. Whereas most tanks used diesel in WW2, the shermans used gasoline and when hit a tank using that were likely to go up in flames in an instant.

Also the t-34 had a very high survival rate of the commander compared to other contemporary tanks. Its durability an placement of the commander position meant he was both likely to survive a hit AND get out. The rest of the crew and especially the machinegunner on the other hand...well lets just say they were lucky to survive a single hit.

Slightly on topic, the tank whose crew has the highest chance of survival in the entire world today is the Israeli Merkava. That tank was designed primarily for the survival of the crew so it's no wonder, the reason for this is the low population of Israel.

[EscforrealityTLS]

Shermans were called "tommy cookers" for a reason. Whereas most tanks used diesel in WW2, the shermans used gasoline and when hit a tank using that were likely to go up in flames in an instant.

This notion is false and was spread by the film "Patton". There is an old thread in this forum with research and all explaining why, was a very interesting thread, but I can't remember much of it now.

[Demon767]

lmao so much patriotism by americans and germans alike

lets just say they were both equally fucking brave to fight eachother

[Spartan_Marine88]

This notion is false and was spread by the film "Patton". There is an old thread in this forum with research and all explaining why, was a very interesting thread, but I can't remember much of it now.

No, they were still considered death traps. There were numerous reasons that this was so, not because of only 1 reason. Even had one glaring weakness in the turret that the germans knew about. But it was cheaper to not have to retool all the plants, and they could be mass produced, which was the reason they were so effective.

Doctrine to beat tigers, throw 5 at it.

Yes, the americans were the first spammers.

http://www.randomhouse.com/book/31477/death-traps-by-belton-y-cooper

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/cooper.html

Before you get all patriotic, and listend to propaganda (and stupid people) The Russians, British, Canadians, French, Polish all through everything they could into tank R&D there was various success and restraints due to the individuals economical power.
The Americans who were following an isolationist policy at the time, put forward a small budget toward research, which forced cost cutting, which does not lead to the creation of a better tank. It was only after they became invested did they get serious with inventions like m18's, but even then they worried more about the pacific war, in which tanks were not of much use.

Such cost cutting was shown again at the beginning of the vietnam war (made worse by the careless distribution of the wrong gunpowder) and is starting to rear its head again with such things as the "next generation fighter" from the lowest bidder.

[AmPM]

This notion is false and was spread by the film "Patton". There is an old thread in this forum with research and all explaining why, was a very interesting thread, but I can't remember much of it now.

Exactly, tanks did not brew up based on the fuel used, but on how the Ammunition was protected. Also, Sherman tanks all adopted wet storage after the early years of British use.

Panther's also had a reputation for burning easily.

Early Russian tank designs (pre 1943) did not feature a copula on most tanks, and the commander was also the gunner....terrible idea that every other nation gave up on in 1940...

[Demon767]

lol vietnam war, you can blame australia for dragging america there

[brn4meplz]

Slightly on topic, the tank whose crew has the highest chance of survival in the entire world today is the Israeli Merkava. That tank was designed primarily for the survival of the crew so it's no wonder, the reason for this is the low population of Israel.

I know their tank is designed to protect the crew but I'm not sure it's the best at it. The Challenger 2 currently uses the most durable structural material of any tank in the world. The Challenger 2 has been in service since 1998 and only 2 have ever been damaged

[TheVolskinator]

^Its probably a different hatch deseign or crew layout, so it might not be based on not getting disabled, just escaping safely IF it becomes disabled.

 Btw, where did we get to nam', patriotism, and shit gunpowder from surviving an immobilised tank bailout? lol..

[RoyalHants]

Eirr forums

[Sachaztan]

I know their tank is designed to protect the crew but I'm not sure it's the best at it. The Challenger 2 currently uses the most durable structural material of any tank in the world. The Challenger 2 has been in service since 1998 and only 2 have ever been damaged

Exactly, what volskinator said.

This thread is about surviving a tank bailout

[Heartmann]

To my knowledge the tank that was known to burst into flames AND got the nick name TOMMY cookers is the brittish Fire fly, the reason beeing that the engins cooling solution was faulty and had a tendancy to over heat cuasing either cumbostion or a furiuse steam sauna in the tank= like big cauldruns or cookers

Again this is only to my knowledge^^

[Spartan_Marine88]

To my knowledge the tank that was known to burst into flames AND got the nick name TOMMY cookers is the brittish Fire fly, the reason beeing that the engins cooling solution was faulty and had a tendancy to over heat cuasing either cumbostion or a furiuse steam sauna in the tank= like big cauldruns or cookers

Again this is only to my knowledge^^

Its probably all of the above. Lets be honest here, the name didn't come from nowhere, but from the people who lived and died by the things.

Cost cutting isn't known to produce good things, hence why Made in China is the ass end of any joke about a product