The definition of Destruction/Disabled

Where does the line go? What is the difference?

Discuss.

 

Basically, can it be repaired & re-used.

Examples:

If a tank gets penetrated by an AP shot, which kills the crew but barely damages the interior of the tank, it gets patched & repared. Thus it is technically a 'kill' for the opposition, but not a destroyed tank.

If a tank is hit & set on fire, it tends to become unrepairable, and thus is 'destroyed'.

 

You know, generally you will get much better answers to your questions if you ask people to share their knowledge politely, instead of giving orders.

 

I believe he may have meant it to be sort of humourous, since in English schools and colleges it is not unusual to get essay or assignment titles that are just a sentence or statement followed by the word "Discuss".

Of course I could be completely wrong...

 

I was not offended.

 

Ahh... I'm sorry if it sounded like an order. It was meant as a suggestion

The question is in the title, which Ricky answered.

 

Now, according to Danyel's favourite author, the Germans would often fire on a tank until it burnt, thus denying its future use to the Allies.

1) is this true?

2) if it is true, surely this puts to bed the claim (also made by that gentleman) that Shermans caught fire is you so much as breathed on them wrong...

 

Common way of closing a question in every forum community in existance. I swear to GOD you people call me overly sensitive then pull stuff like this. Horrible, absolutely terrible.

 

I'm still not convinced about this tinder box sherman thing.

I reckon a lot has to do with the fact that the germans were always one gun size up all the way through compared to the allies.

We had the 2 lb when they were using 50mm and short 75mm. We upgraded to the 6lb and they went to the 75mm long and 88mm. When we pulled our fingers out and had 17lb they were experimenting with the 88mm long and 128mm guns. No wonder our tanks exploded on impact when theres were just damaged.

But I digress. The destruction of a tank in battle as far as the attacker is concerned is knocking it out. Even if that only meant it's crew abandoned it due it becoming immobilised by loss of track, stalling, mud etc. You still stopped it fighting and thats what counts at the time. But all these tanks can be reused and often were.

Even when a tank was holed by an AP round killing some or all of the crew later they just towed them back, plugged the hole and washed it out and gave it a new crew. I read a story about a guy who was assigned to a tank which had this done to it and he complained it was bad for moral as they never cleaned them properly in the field and the insides would be covered with some powder presumly to prevent infection/smells.

A fully destroyed tank is one that is burnt out. But it has to be either very bad engine burn or the loss of the crew compartment. The minor burning of an engine could just be swapped out with a spare one from another recovered tank.

By definition tanks are farly robust things and it takes a solid burning to put one out of action for ever.

But it all depends on what you have behind the lines. In Normandy the allies had quite a few spare tanks which were given to crews who had lost or missplaced there's (one guy in a story drove his into a ditch and then just legged it!) So whilst you have new ones to be assigned the recovery of holed ones is not a high priority. Obviously the germans rarely had this luxoury and were quite resourcful, especially in Africa

FNG

 

Inaccuracy. The Americans introduced the M3 M4 Mediums when the Germans were still largely using guns of the same caliber or smaller. The Soviets had a 76mm gun mounted on their T-34 when the Germans were only using smaller calibers. In the case of the British, yes they were as far I know always a size behind. However, we all know how much of a flaw it is to assume that gun size is the only measurement of its ability to defeat armor.

 

Another way to destoy a tank (not burning) is to simply smash it apart. I have a picture somewhere of a Pz.II hit but a 75mm shell in Poland - it is pretty shattered...

 

this is true, as the 6pdr(57mm) was superier in its ap performence to the m3 75mm. Fairly similar to the l43 75mm of the germans. And the 76.2mm 17 pounder was superior to the l56 88m of the tiger.

 

The sole value of a tank, or tank gun, is not solely in armor penetration. A good tank had to be able to effectively deal with a variety of targets. I doubt the 6 or 17pdr were superior when it came to dealing with targets other than armored vehicles.

 

You also don't want tanks that are completely incapable of defending themselves against enemy armor.

 

I'm in violent agreement with you DP, it's just that everyone assumes the best tank is the one with the best anti-armor performance. I think a good tank has to be a good all around performer.