WW II unusual array of specialized Brit tanks

[redrider90]

We all love to talk about the planes of WW II but this article on the specialized Brit tanks designed by "Percy Hobart a visionary British army commander" for the Normandy landing is very interesting. I had no idea that so much effort was put into various tanks to break open the German defenses on the beaches of France.
  http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160603-the-strange-tanks-that-helped-win-d-day

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

[Tom]

Thx.

[sign216]

 yes, thanks.  An interesting account of D Day armor.

[Muzz]

Sky TV had a doco on not so long ago about Hobart's "funnies' as they were called.

Some were more successful than others. Most of the floating ones sank before they got to shore due to the rough weather and bing launched a fair way out.

A book I read once said the Churchill was not very fast but it's ability to climb was unmatched.

[Tom H]

Sky TV had a doco on not so long ago about Hobart's "funnies' as they were called.

Some were more successful than others. Most of the floating ones sank before they got to shore due to the rough weather and bing launched a fair way out.

A book I read once said the Churchill was not very fast but it's ability to climb was unmatched.

There was most likely the same show on Discovery Channel or the like some time ago. Lot's of weird machines. As mentioned some worked and some didn't. At least someone gave it a shot to help the war effort.

Tom

[ITSec]

I was always puzzled by the attitude of the US planners towards the 'funnies' - despite the stereotype of America as the land of innovation and experimentation, leaders below Eisenhower apparently suffered from the classic NIH (not invented here) syndrome. Events at Omaha and Utah beaches might have been much different had they taken full advantage of these creations, and had the US commanders been willing to bring the swimming tanks they did use closer in to shore before releasing them...

As for Hobart, he is one among many that the British military cast aside after WWI, failing to recognize and utilize their insight. The other classic example is Frank Whittle; of course, there's also that guy who was First Lord of the Admiralty who took the fall for the Gallipoli campaign, even though he had far less to do with its planning or execution than was thought.

[leafman60]

And I thought I was going to see custom hand-hammered aluminum gas tanks!

[johnr]

A book I read once said the Churchill was not very fast but it's ability to climb was unmatched.

Flat out at about 12 mph I believe Muzz. The Churchill though was designed as a tank to use in conjunction with infantry so it did not need to go much faster than a walking pace and did need to be very heavily armoured.

[johnr]

I was always puzzled by the attitude of the US planners towards the 'funnies' - despite the stereotype of America as the land of innovation and experimentation, leaders below Eisenhower apparently suffered from the classic NIH (not invented here) syndrome. Events at Omaha and Utah beaches might have been much different had they taken full advantage of these creations, and had the US commanders been willing to bring the swimming tanks they did use closer in to shore before releasing them...

This.
It seems a peculiar 'disease'.   Quite few senior leaders popped into mind when I read this. The fellow in charge of the navy on the Eastern side of the US and the guy in charge of the battle of Monte Cassino for example.

As for Hobart, he is one among many that the British military cast aside after WWI, failing to recognize and utilize their insight. The other classic example is Frank Whittle; of course, there's also that guy who was First Lord of the Admiralty who took the fall for the Gallipoli campaign, even though he had far less to do with its planning or execution than was thought.

This too.

[Old Jock]

Off Topic a bit I guess, but the naval action at the beginning of the Gallipoli campaign was fascinating.

The British admiral on the spot, John De Robeck? took cold feet at the horrendous loss of ships and men and stopped it (in itself down to a Turkish light steamer who noticed the ships always broke off the in the same direction and mined the channel).

That's understandable, the ships however were obsolete and the loss of men although highly significant was of nothing compared with the losses in the trenches.

The several accounts I've read stated that if the British had pressed the drive to get through the straights by one more day they would have had ships in the Bosphorous.

The war (and Churchill's career with it) would have then taken a radically different course.

One of the Turkish combatants stated they were down to their last shell, in some of the forts.

John

[tris]

I think that the funnies had a role but without the mulberry harbour and PLUTO things could have been very different

[charlie b]

I was always puzzled by the attitude of the US planners towards the 'funnies' - despite the stereotype of America as the land of innovation and experimentation, leaders below Eisenhower apparently suffered from the classic NIH (not invented here) syndrome. Events at Omaha and Utah beaches might have been much different had they taken full advantage of these creations, and had the US commanders been willing to bring the swimming tanks they did use closer in to shore before releasing them...

As for Hobart, he is one among many that the British military cast aside after WWI, failing to recognize and utilize their insight. The other classic example is Frank Whittle; of course, there's also that guy who was First Lord of the Admiralty who took the fall for the Gallipoli campaign, even though he had far less to do with its planning or execution than was thought.

The US defense dept is riddled with that.  Christie developed a great tank and the Army R&D folks threw him out.  The Russions took him in and the result was the T-34, best tank in WWII.  Even Browning had a hard time getting his designs accepted.  And some of the stupid decisions, like no supercharger on the P-51 or P-39.  Thankfully the Brits fixed the P-51.  Even today R&D is hobbled by the bureaucrats.  Remember Schwarzkopf and desert boots?  Army R&D told him it would take years.  He went directly to a bunch of boot mfgs, had samples in a week and made a selection in days.  Production started the next week.

[Old Jock]

Not just the US that adopted that attitude

During WWII RR developed at their own cost the Meteor engine, a non supercharged, slightly de-tuned Merlin, that rotated in the opposite direction. It eventually got accepted but RR had to push very hard to get the military to accept it, even though during trials it knocked absolute spots off the Liberty the tank engine of choice for the military.

The Liberty in itself was a modified version of the Eagle, I think, I could be wrong there, anyway it was a modified version of a WWI RR aircraft engine.

Once accepted RR produced and only charged what it cost to build a totally non for profit engine. Read a book about it, it was an absolute scandal, with bureaucracy and upper class snobbery taking president over winning the war

John

[rodekyll]

A major (literally) obstacle to the adoption of repeating rifles in the US arsenal was the quartermasters who were appalled that upgrading their small arms would render their huge stockpiles of ammunition useless.  It took General Custer and a few of his boys to convince them otherwise.

[wymple]

Hobart saved a lot of lives, and if he had been given proper respect by the Americans the Normandy graveyards would be a lot smaller.