Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 08 2016, @08:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-it's-silly-but-it-works,-it's-not-silly dept.

Here's a story of the interestingly designed tanks that helped the Allies win on the D-day beaches of Dieppe. Tanks designed by an unconventional thinker (but who wants to think conventionally?). This is the story of 'Hobart's Funnies'. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160603-the-strange-tanks-that-helped-win-d-day

On 19 August 1942, Allied armies put their plan for an invasion of Occupied Europe to the ultimate test – by landing troops on the beaches and trying to capture a French port [Dieppe].

The landings were a disaster.

In less than 10 hours, more than 60% of the 6,000 British, Canadian and American troops who landed on the beach were either killed, wounded or captured. All of of the 28 tanks which came ashore alongside them – essential if the troops were going to be able break through the German strongpoints – were knocked out. Many were stranded, unable to move on the loose shingle, and picked off by anti-tank guns.

The failure of the Dieppe landings provided many lessons. Trying to capture a heavily defended port was likely to fail, commanders realised. Troops would have to land on sandy beaches, and their tanks would have to be able to make their way across these beaches and punch holes through the seawalls or other concrete obstacles the Germans had built up.

One man, it turned out, had a solution. And two years later, his fleet of highly specialised – and often bizarre-looking tanks – would be one of the major reasons why the D-Day landings were a success.

My personal favourite: the Sherman DD swimming tank. Or as the Americans discovered, the Sherman submarine.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:00PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:00PM (#356998) Journal

    Reminds me of a definition of "think tank": a place where people think about tanks.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:02PM

    by Anne Nonymous (712) on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:02PM (#357000)

    Apparently the Sherman DD was a sort of "sink tank".

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:15PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:15PM (#357007) Journal

      TFA says it was "designed to resist waves as high as 30 cm." I would imagine that plopping a tank into the sea could generate a wave as high as that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08 2016, @09:29PM (#357014)

        2m waves off Omaha; sent them in anyhow.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday June 08 2016, @11:14PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday June 08 2016, @11:14PM (#357056)

      A tank with bright headlights that they could turn on and off would be a "blink tank".

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @04:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @04:31AM (#357178)

        Ethanol farted in it: stink tank.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Thursday June 09 2016, @02:15PM

        by deimtee (3272) on Thursday June 09 2016, @02:15PM (#357317) Journal

        A tank infested with small lizards would be a "skink tank"

        --
        No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.