*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Just a follow up...
>It's quite true that the U.S. experiment with DD tanks was somewhat less than
>successful. The problem, however, was not in the concept, but in the
>execution.
Exactly. Most amphibious vehicles will "drown" in surf and/or heavy
waves. I have a M29C Weasel and the training film says to go back to
shore if the water is so much as choppy! Even DUKWs have to be careful
and must stay away from surf from what I have read on this list.
The US also had Shermans and Stuarts fitted with deep water kits, so it
is entirely possible that some of these were in need of recovery. They
didn't swim, rather they could submerge up to a fixed depth.
BTW, the Germans had submersible tanks in 1940 ready for the invasion of
Great Britain that never was. These were PzIIIs fitted with snorkels and
could operate at a depth of 15m below the surface. Also the first batch
of Tigers were outfitted to be able to run under water for river
crossings in Russia. However it proved impractical in practice and
further production abandoned the setup.
>Certainly, the men who volunteered to crew these tanks - in EITHER service
>- must have had Great Big Brass Ones!
Well said! If I were told to drive off the ramp of a landing craft in
one of those I would have said, "you want me to do WHAT?!?" :-)
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:19 PDT