Battle of the Bulge - Link

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Guest, Feb 23, 2003.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Rons Toys
    Moderator
    Posts: 68
    (4/24/01 9:42:00 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del All Battle of the Bulge - Link
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I ran across this site:
    cougar.collegiate.ind.k12...i-chappell

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 319
    (4/25/01 8:33:36 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Tanks
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is that TD an M10 or an M36? I don't recognise the muzzle brake on the end of the barrel.

    Most M10s didn't have one on the end of the 76mm. BUT this one only has the small counterweight on the back of the turret, and the gun seems a little small for a 90mm...

    Could it actually be a British M10 with a 77mm?

    The other is a pretty nice M4/105, you don't see too many of them...

    The Hetzer is in good shape too...

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 320
    (4/25/01 8:48:23 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Tanks
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BINGO!!!

    Check out the link, guys, and you'll see something that's really common with military museums.

    That first "US" tank is actually a M10 Mk.II Achilles BRITISH Tank Destroyer with the 17 pounder.

    I looked it up in Zaloga's "US Tank Destroyers in Combat 1941-1945." That muzzle break and counterweight gives it away.

    I doubt any Achilles were in the Bulge, but they probably got one "cheap" after the war, repainted it, put on the star, and thought nobody would notice. Now during the Bulge some of Bradleys regiments WERE given to Montgomery just to the north, but I don't think any of the British were actually engaged, and I don't think any Achilles were "reverse lend-leased."

    They were US M10s given to the British with no guns, and they mounted the 17 pounder (77mm)on it and it was pretty effective...

    Kinda like all the "fake" Napoleons at Gettysburg where they took 6 pound howitzers and gave them a false muzzle and called them "12 pound Napoleons"...

    Those museum curators can be sneaky!

    obelix2
    Registered User
    Posts: 130
    (4/26/01 9:06:32 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Fakes
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You threw that last paragraph in just to provoke me, didn't you?

    Several Confederate batteries at Gettysburg did include howitzers (12- and a couple of 24-pdrs), but they still look like howitzers. It'd be a real trick to turn them into Napoleons. Besides cutting off the moldings, you'd have the lengthen the tube by over a foot.

    Actually, though, I have heard of this being done (and not just at Gettysburg), I guess by the War Department. But not to howitzers, to Model 1841 6-pdr field guns (adding an inch of bore at the muzzle end) If so, they did a pretty good job.

    To tell which is which, I'd have to go around the field with a 12-pound shot, trying to load them. And the Park Service has been known to get unreasonable with people who do that.

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 331
    (4/27/01 8:13:29 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Battle of the Bulge - Link
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fairfax Downey does a good job in "The Guns at Gettysburg" identifying all the "fake" Napoleons there. They did turn the muzzles and faked some of the cap shoulders.

    He said the best way to tell the "fakes" are because the muzzle stampings will be closer to the bore than the outer circumference on the 6 pounders that were turned and redrilled for like 6-10" to look like 12 pounders. Originally the muzzle markings were centered between the bore and the outer muzzle. That 12 pound ball WOULD fit the muzzle of the fake 6s, but they would only go in about 6" or so till it hit the "true" bore.

    They did a good job with them though, only a few people would ever notice. I never would without KNOWING what to look for.

    Downey sounds pissed about it, there were alot of 6 pounders used in the west, and he says faking Napoleons just ruined perfectly good 6 pounders that were historical in their own right. Heck, most people would NEVER have noticed the difference if they left them alone. And any returning veterans would have noticed anyway.

    Never go to a historical movie with me, I can get annoying if the props aren't just right.

    obelix2
    Registered User
    Posts: 136
    (4/28/01 7:33:46 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del 6-pdrs
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You might have seen a good many of them early in the War, but their relative effectiveness was so small against the Napoleons and Ordnance Rifles that the North rifled a good many, and the South, pressed as it was for artillery, melted some down for recasting. At Gettysburg I think there was ONE on the field, in one of those crazily mixed Confederate batteries, Branch's. The logic of throwing together three Napoleons, a 12-pdr howitzer and a 6-pdr field gun escapes me.

    This isn't too relevant to the Battle of the Bulge, is it? For the films I'll start a new topic.

    obelix2
    Registered User
    Posts: 145
    (4/28/01 9:06:18 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Yeah but
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fairfax Downey, it suddenly occurs to me, was the author of "Indian-Fighting Army," a book I want to find again. I know this is the one period (well,it was a most-of-the-time affair) in American history you claim to have little interest in, but I'd love to find a copy to replace that long-lost, tattered paperback. Amazon, if I must.

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 341
    (4/29/01 8:23:00 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Yeah but
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ob, I didn't say I had little interest in ANY era!!!
    I just at this time have MORE interest in others.

    Just haven't spent much time in it,or some others, yet. I also am deficient in the Egyptian defenses of the upper Nile, the Hittites, the Zulu, and some of the Chinese Dynasties. I can BS my way through the effect of the chariot and composite bow on modern warfare, though.

    Just the "basics" so far on some eras, just enough to get me in trouble.

    Will get there someday, though!!! Guaranteed.

    I think it was WhiteClouder who said it best. "So much to know, so little time..."



    Edited by: polishshooter at: 4/29/01 9:25:20 pm
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum August 1943 Battle for Burma Aug 21, 2012
General Military Arms & History Forum 112th Calvary "Rarin To Go" Pic of Vets Battle Damaged Jap Arisaka Aug 17, 2011
General Military Arms & History Forum Civil War Battles by states Sep 21, 2010
General Military Arms & History Forum Revolutionary War Battlefields in South Carolina Sep 13, 2010
General Military Arms & History Forum TN. and KY. Civil War Battlefields Jun 1, 2010