previous post next post  

A new "special friend" of the Castle.

Send the Armorer pics like this, as SezaGeoff does, and you too, can be a Friend of the Castle!

Regarding the discussions about tanks and who had what operable Tigers where, Geoff sent along this pic he thought (correctly) I might find interesting - from the French tank museum at Saumur. It is an early model Jagdpanzer IV(you can tell by the vertical armor plate vice later models, which were lower and sloped), a German tank-hunter used in the last year of the war.

This one having been hunted a bit itself... that is a solid shot with tracer armor piercing round stuck in the glacis. There's a gouge from another hit... and then there's all that cracked and broken armor. Any crewmen on that side of the vehicle had soiled trousers, if they survived. Of course, there was a tendency on the battlefield to put "insurance shots" into armored vehicles that weren't obviously dead, as in a catastrophic kill. It was not unusual (especially with Geman vehicles which didn't burn as readily as US vehicles, being fueled with diesel and not gasoline) to have many extra holes in them as tanks passing by on their way elsewhere made sure for themselves.

This grouping of shots however, strikes me as an indicator of a duel between this vehicle and one or two other Allied tanks or anti-tank guns. Perhaps a first hit (the large hole on the lower portion) on the transmission housing immobilizing the vehicle followed by subsequent shots until the crew bailed or the Allied crew/s were satisfied the vehicle was no longer a threat. Perhaps CAPT H has some thoughts on the possibilities?

Hi-res, click here.

He sent along this commentary:

I mentioned the Musee des Blindes at Saumur in France in the comments. One of the exhibits in the German Hall was a Jagdpanzer that had been taken out by multiple hits of AP. One was still stuck in the glacis! Apparently the US soldiers took it over afterwards and used it for a while, which explains the steel plate where the MG was. I thought you might like to look at the picture.

And he's correct! I think the plate over the MG he's referring to is actually just the normal construction for the early version of this vehicle (see the pics in the article linked to above), but who cares? Kewl pic of a vehicle that saw real action, unlike most of the vehicles and aircraft you'll find in US museums. Not a slam on US museums, but we didn't tend to bring our own shot-up stuff back. And precious little of the other guy's stuff. By contrast, the Europeans, pretty much always being the Home Team last century, had lots of stuff to pick and choose from, without the transport costs.

Thanks, Geoff! Oh, and Geoff, my email box has high capacity and I have broadband access... no worries!

11 Comments

If that was from a 2-tank duel, the opponent sure had good grouping. I am curious why it would have so many hits to the upper left. If I were to hazard a guess, i'd say this Panzer encountered a group of 3 or more Sherman's, and threw it into reverse or made a tight left turn, just as the American tanks opened up, throwing off their aim collectively. No good frame of reference, but that round sticking out of the glacis looks about 75mm. In that one photo, the Panzer took 5 hits. I suppose there could be a lot more possibilities, such as it was dug in, and that was the only angle it could be shot at. Protruding round looks too small to be a 90mm Pershing. Wasn't the mid-war M4 infamous for having its round curve low and to the right, due to the design of the gun?
 
I would say the grouping argues *against* a multi-tank duel, and for a one-on-one - but that's why I asked CAPT H, a tanker, (or any of you tankers - espcially if there's any *Sherman* tankers in the readership!) to weigh in.
 
1. The JPzr in your photo is the same one as in the linked article, by "Lionel Gonnet". 2. There are three hits: two on the vertical plate (one with shot in place), and a ricochet on the sloped plate above. 3. There is a conical fitting seen on the other photos , which is absent here. I think the fitting was removed rather than shot off, e.g. by the ricochet. The damage outboard of the hole may be due to another hit/penetration as the lower portion of the entry may be discerned. 4. The hole in the transmission compartment does not look like ATk damage to me, rather a slinter from a bomb. 5. I would suggest the projectile could be the 76mm from the Firefly. From an AAR: "There are two clean holes in it and three "gouges". One hole is in the side of the gun barrel, approx 3 in from the mantlet; since there is no hole out the other side of the barrel, and judging from the angle of penetration about 60 deg from normal) it seems probable that this AP round entered the turret via the breech of the gm. The other hole is in the side wall of the turret." Cheers JMH
 
See? Tankers *do* have some limited utility...!
 
I'm just wonderin...... Since Bill is coming home tonight.... WHERE'S THE WELCOME HOME PARTY!?!?!?!
 
Carp... He's coming home on the 4th- not the 2nd.... but that just means we have more time to plan!
 
AFSis - We should plan a welcome back party, fer sure! *and so another good comment thread gets hijacked ... grin*
 
Hey John, I've got more photo fodder for you here=http://www.freakchylde.net/~ryangill/
 
That AP shot lodged in the glacis plate sends shivers down the back of this old tanker... and I hope the crew bailed from that PzKw before it was too late. ...sooooo- Chief is due back this weekend, eh? heh [installs turbo super-charger from P-38 Lightning on intake manifold of Rita-Matic] Clear!
 
Neffi- I can always count on you to turbo-charge the 'rita-matic! WHOO HOO! (excellent choice of aircraft, btw)
 
Couldn't the 'charger from a P-47 Thunderbolt? Cheers JMH