The Great WW2 Myth Show (thread)

I think we've dealt pretty decisively with the myth of Polish cavalry charging German tanks on this forum. But there are plenty of other myths out there that need to be confirmed (or denied)!

Here's the topic for them, go ahead!

 

A few 'name myths' (i.e. none o fthe vehicles in the first column were ever given the name in the second column)

Code:

Vehicle                             Wrong name
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neubaufahrzeug                      Pz.Kpfw. V or Pz.Kpfw. VI
Jagdpanzer 38                       Hetzer
Panzer IV/70 (A)                    Zwischenlösung
Sturmpanzer                         Brummbär
Pz.Kpfw. Tiger Ausf. B 'Tiger II'   Königstiger

I addition, what is commonly called the Saukopfblende was in fact called Topfblende.

 

Oh Roel, what a can of worms!

I think I will just sit back & watch this one awhile!

:smok:

 

That's exactly why I made it! Get some contribution in of you can.

Christian, could you by any chance explain why we call them the Hetzer, Sturmtiger and Königstiger then?!

 

Roel
The reason for the erroneous names usually stem from one of two reasons:
- Poor Allied military 'intelligence'
- Poor research by authors

There are stories behind most of the names, but to begin listing them all would be too time consuming on company time

 

:lol:
Mind you, I would like to hear those stories if possible...

 

Muhahahahaha! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I hope to get a few of these stories up on my re-design of Panzerworld, which I hope will be online within a year or so. Maybe a bit more, it depends on how much work I'll have... :|

 

The "E-boat". "E" standing for "Enemy" I believe.

 

Yes, they were actually S-Booten or Schnellbooten, fast boats.

Hey look, I knew one!

 

post subject

HOW ABOUT THE "CDL"???
Come on Ricky, your floor!

 

CDL as in "Canal Defense Lights?"

Unfortunately, I know very little about that particular apparatus. I caught part of a (cringe) History Channel episode that talked about them, but I can't remember details.

Anyone?

 

A system of Searchlights (appropriately armoured) mounted on tanks to both dazzle defenders and guide attackers.
The twist was that the light flickered, thereby causing confusion/disorientation to those on the receiving end.
Only used once (during the Rhine crossing). They were never used before that, as their big advantage was surprise (and the Germans could develop counter-measures), and by the time they were available there were no suitable battles...

Named 'Canal Defense Lights' to hide their true purpose.

(thanks trackpin!)

 

Check here!

http://www.panzerworld.net/facts.html#1

 

The CDLs were mounted on modified M3 Lee tanks. What's the myth?

 

post subject

the myth is that they were named for the defence of the Suez Canal.

 

Isn't that a deception?

Here's an ever-returning question that I want this topic to solve. Did the Super Heavy tank "Maus" ever see any action, anywhere? Did it ever fire a shell in anger or move to a front line position at all?

 

From Publishers Weekly
This account of the fight for southern Holland during WWII is told largely from the viewpoint of surviving participants. The Battle of Overloon and the Maas Salient was fought by British and U.S. divisions against paratroopers who formed the backbone of German resistance, but the emphasis is on the terror experienced by Dutch civilians. The narrative is studded with unexpected scenes: the inexplicable appearance of a German cavalry unit that destroyed itself by attacking British tanks

 

Roel - I don't think anybody knows for certain.
Most accounts say that one Maus was blown up by the Germans, and the other was captured by the Soviets. Here and there you get claims that this tank (the one that was captured) was actually pressed into service to defend the factory it was in.
The only way I can think of to disprove this theory is by looking at the hull of the surviving example. There is a link somewhere. One would expect, if it had been in combat, that it would have picked up a scar or two from shells that failed to penetrate. The pictures I have seen show no evidence of this at all...
Yes, this is a superficial method, but the best I can come up with right now!

 

It wouldn't make sense to press the Maus into action. First of all, there was no trained crew to man it. Second, there would most likely not have been any ammunition available.

Christian

 

If it was under test, surely they would have had ammo, and people who were testing it could use it.
Heck, most tank crew could have used it, not particularly effectively I'll admit, but in desperate times...

This was not a proper deployment or anything, I'm sure they knew that it probably would not survive the fight, but it must have looked like a very welcome addition to the defenses!