Talk:Anti-tank dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Curzio Malaparte's Caputt may be added as literary depiction of this phenomenon. He devotes one chapter to it in very readable form. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hundeminen and anti-tank dogs

  • Is Anti-tank dogs, and dog mines the same thing? the picture depics an anti-tank dog, but what would a dog mine do? stay put with a vest of explosives, and wag its tail to the passing tanks? I dont think that dogs can be trained to stay put or sit for a very long time.
  • and second, wouldnt the tank commander see the dog, i mean the vest isnt really that camouflaged with the dogs' fur color. Couldnt he take his pitol ( or a gun he would certainly have with him, or a machine gun on the tank, and start shooting the poor dog, instead or running away at 25 km/h?

I dont want to be of a negative tone to this article ( its been very useful to be and I appreciate the person who wrote it), but I just dont think that a anti-tank dog would have been the cleaverlest idea to be used in WW2. and what surprises me, is that both sides used it.

I guess its like the US that start shooting at every car that just comes too close to their Humvee or sumthin like that ( i read it in the newspaper - its like a comfort zone). But coming back to WW2, I believe that if the tank crew spotted anyone (not allied soldiers inparticular, or really just anything hostile) advancing towards their tanks, they would shoot him/her. So why wouldnt they shhot the dogs?lol. And now we can see the evolution about the unknown, that we are mistaking some lunch bag for a bomb. Always fun to see it on the news and have the robot shoot a few of those water rockets into it...

I'll do abit of research, and I'll try to add to this article paat 21:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, I really don't understand your comments.
  • Is Anti-tank dogs, and dog mines the same thing? -> first line of article: "Anti-tank dogs, also known as dog mines..."


  • Couldnt he take his pitol ( or a gun he would certainly have with him, or a machine gun on the tank, and start shooting the poor dog, -> "...and on the Eastern Front dogs were shot on sight ...". If you talk about the picture, it's from an exercise.
  • I just dont think that a anti-tank dog would have been the cleaverlest idea to be used in WW2. -> ??? Who said it was clever? (or cleaverlest?)
  • and what surprises me, is that both sides used it. -> This surprises me as well, since the article mentions only Soviet use.
  • So why wouldnt they shhot the dogs?lol -> They did: "...and on the Eastern Front dogs were shot on sight... Dogs became scarce as a result..." - Alureiter 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


oops. sory thanks for the reality check. I dont know how i missed all of that. I understood that the German learned how to use them too. paat 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


  • The dogs were probably kept in trenches with their handlers, until a tank got close. Then released. Incase you werent aware, a tank cant shoot straight down. often times, at close range, you cant even hit a human with the coaxial machine gun on a tank. The dogs normally used for this sort of detail were short, runty dogs, not a pure bred german shepard. That said, a dog could be anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 feet tall probably. A tank probably cant hit a target this small if its 50 feet or closer. Maybe the machinegunner next to the driver could, but he doesnt have the best visibility in the world. Even if a tank could hit the dog, i think they would be more preoccupied with a t34, or a anti tank gun, as they make more noise, and are kinda bit and noticible. Not to mention, a tank might damage its self if it shoots reall close to its self.
  • And to address getting out of the tank to shoot the dog, yeah, right, try that in the middle of a battle. A piece of shrapnel, a sniper, a machine gun, or an infantry man will take you down the second they get a bead on you. You'd have to be a crack shot with a pistol to hit a dog in the head, while the dog is running at you, and you are ontop of a moving tank, in the middle of a tank battle, and you probably have adrenaline pumping through your system (not the best thing for keeping a steady hand). The chance of hitting the dog is very little, and if you do, he might not even stop from the first shot. Yes, a Mp40 or liberated ppsh41 might rid you of the dog, but youll still probably get shot in the neck by some one like Vasily Zaitsev.--Ryan 07:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow! 225 kills = 11 snipers, my good, how can u survive that long without being sniped urself by ur movement, ur shots beeing traced or the light refleting off your scope? paat 13:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no clue of the etiquette of Wiki and such so I apologize in advance. I have read upon this subject in Paul Carrell's Hitler Moves East (a disputable book/author). The dogs were trained mostly with the use of tractors, not T-34 tanks or for that matter, any other Soviet armour; however, later on in the war its more then plausible. This is due mainly to the point that when trained, the Soviet Union couldn't exactly afford the allocation of resources to a menial project. During training the dogs food were put under the tracks of a running tractor. After initially scared, the dogs would eventually become used to eating under the loud tractors. I point out the use of tractors because the difference between tank and tractor engines is very noticeable; the latter being much louder so when used some of the dogs were afraid of the tanks and ran.

The basic premise of the mine dog was once under the tank and ridden over a rod in the mechanism would snap do to the weight and then explode. Initial reports by the Germans thought the dogs as messenger dogs (do to the sack worn) and cared very little of them. That is of course before they became aware of what they were and the first casualties reported. The dogs although initially semi-successful became less so when the Germans became aware. The numbers presented in the article seem a little high. Contrary to the above poster said, the dogs were easier to handled at such ranges. Of course that is not to say that all of the dogs were dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockawayG24 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/anti-tank/dog_mine/dog_mine_001.php - this site states: "A soviet dog mine in training, or so it would appear. What is interesting about this picture is that although the training tank does not have a real gun, its turret appears to be that of the T-34/85. The T-34/85 was not introduced until 1944, yet dog mines were supposed to have been withdrawn in 1942!" - this goes with the picture seen on the article page paat 18:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Paat's edit [1] states "but there has been speculation that this method was still being used . . .". I'll remove this "weasel-word" sentence, unless someone can indicate where there has been such speculation, preferably with a verifiable reference. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 16:46 Z

I found it on a web site. I can give you the link, if you want: http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History9/ paat 19:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That web page contains as much patriotism as facts, and it cites no references. I don't think it qualifies as a verifiable source. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 19:10 Z

[edit] The Smell of fuel.

I remember reading that one problem was that Russian tanks used diesel while german tanks used Petrol (or maybe it was the other way around?). The Dogs tended to go for the Russian tanks since they had the right smell. No ref sorry. - SimonLyall 01:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The german tanks were using BMW and Mercedes (i'm not the best speller) aircraft engines, which ran on Gas (petrol). No sources, but an interesting fact. 4.247.143.84 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits of 25 May 06

1. Changed 'tipped' to tripped'.

2. Deleted 'bomb', inserted 'explosive charge'. In the context of WW II, a bomb was a weapon dropped from an aircraft.

3. Deleted 'no armor'. inserted 'less armour'. Most armoured vehicles have their armour distributed thus: front - thickest, sides - lots, rear - some, underneath - least(but there is still some).

4. Changed 'climb under' - to my knowledge, dogs don't climb anywhere, neither up nor down !

5.Changed 'pulled' to 'withdrawn', I think it is better English.

84.130.117.18 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Many breeds of dog are quite accomplished at climbing trees, fences, etc. Although I agree changing the wording was appropriate.

[edit] The North Korean tank dogs

See it and believe it. -- Toytoy 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange, see 3.46 minute of this video either way it could be a bluff, these dogs are running under maquets of tanks (they seem happy so it might be just a game for them), it would be much harder to convince them during a battle to happily run under a tank that they are seeing for the first time. Mieciu K 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog catchers

I'll bite. Why didn't they just make tanks with cow-catchers? Er, I mean dog-catchers. Seems like that would have put a screeching halt to the use of anti-tank dogs as weapons. --M.Neko 09:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because tanks don't drive on a nice smooth track and road bed like locomotives. A few minutes of cross-country driving would knock such a thing off of the tank. Antitank dogs would probably have been rare enough that it wouldn't make sense to add such equipment when only, say, 1% or less of tanks would ever need it anyway. —Michael Z. 2006-11-11 22:09 Z

[edit] ... And The Dogs?

Should'nt this article be more clear about the fact that the dog DIES in the process of triggering the mine? The way the article is read seems to imply that a dog can survive having an anti-tank bomb explode off its back! Should'nt there be some sort of section for the humanity of the practice, especally if it was carried on into 1996? Or am I just really f**cking confused? 69.250.130.215 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it fairly obvious the dog would not survive? --Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not. -- 69.250.130.215 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, anyone who can read can tell the dog dies. It doesn't need to be pointed out, just like the French Fry page doesn't point out potato's died. It's obvious. If you wanna make a stink about it and hug a tree...it really doesn't belong in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.4.72.141 (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
acually, it does. 69.250.130.215 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Dog runs under tank, dog explodes, Tank go broke. And the dog? Well thankfully the Russians invented small portable force fields which at the moment of explosion surrounded the dog and caused him to suffer no harm! Or better yet those tricky Soviets used StarTrek Technology they stole from Time-traveling Occultic Nazi's to 'Beam' the dogs out of there right at the moment of the explosion! Yes I can see how you would be confused. Thankfully no one else is, so rather than make this Article make sense to people with IQ's of 8.6, we can just ignore you and move on to more pressing matters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.37.168 (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Pressing matters? you only wrote that long ass paragraph because you were BORED. At any rate, it dosnt matter, the issue has already been taken care of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
It does belong, and although it may appear obvious I agree it should still be mentioned that the dog is killed. It's not necessary to go into extended exposition on it, but adding a simple, "killing the dog in the process" is sufficient, as it clarifies the matter succinctly. Although it is implicit that the dog would die, when first reading the article I too found it odd that this detail was omitted.

I think those people went to hell, and maybe I will go hug a tree.

Just include in the damn article that the dog dies in the process. The fact that people are asking to begin with points to the need to clarify the issue. --Studio Ghibli (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hoax?

I added the hoax tag some days ago thinking it would obvious why. The whole concept, as described in the article, sounds extremely far-fetched. A google search for "hundeminen" results in 243 hits, and all but a few go to Wikipedia or sites citing Wikipedia. The more formal "panzerabwehrhund" has 334 hits, about as many as a "anti-tank dog" in English. All the sites i find in English seem to contain the same text and they all reference the "entire Soviet tank division" that supposedly was forced to retreat. Nowhere can I find a source for this. Finally, the Russian "Противотанковая собака" has a mere 60 google search results. So, has anyone actually read a book that mentions anti-tank dogs and the use thereof? Of course this could all be accurate and simply obscure, in which case I apologize.


Its world war II, sonny. many events that happened during WWII have very little documentation left after the war.202.12.94.13 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Caption?

The picture labels the T-34 as an 85 model, but that gun looks far smaller and shorter than even the 70+mm gun. Anyone have any insight into this?

That was discussed earlier, but I can't find a link to the archive. We speculate that it is a retired training tank, with a dummy gun in the turret. —Michael Z. 2007-06-04 14:22 Z

[edit] explanation ?

---Training of anti-tank dogs continued until at least June 1996 (Zaloga et al 1997:72)---.
what does that last part mean ? Tyriel 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what's known as a reference, specifically a Harvard reference. —GrimRevenant 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TFD

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Exploding organisms

Template:Exploding organisms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

I believe this page is a copyright violation, specifically of http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=504 . It is identical almost word for word, and nothing leads me to believe the author of the original article has contributed to this one. Can anyone verify its copyright status? -Cronium 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty blatant. The DI page is dated April 11th, 2006 and links here. The April 10, 2006 version was fine, the edit on April 15, 2006 added the suspected text. I've reverted the page to the April 10 version per WP:CV. --Mrwojo (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? It's about dogs that fucking explode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.69.128 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hundeminen

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerabwehrhund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.99.42 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Limited geographic scope

I added the tag {{limitedgeographicscope}} because the article talks only about the use of dogs in the Soviet Union, while anti-tank dogs were also used at least in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I can provide further details about use in the KoY, but I have no idea what are all the countries they were used in. Nikola (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)