Talk:Hobart's Funnies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hobart's Funnies article.
Article policies
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Should there be at least some mention of the other combat engineering vehicles designed before the Funnies? Lots of folks had bridgelayers, swimming tanks, fascine carriers, close-support tanks and mine-clearing vehicles. The funnies were certainly the most elaborate but they were not unique. DMorpheus 16:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As stated in the text "Many of the ideas had already been tried, tested or were in experimental development". The history of swimmers is mostly under DD, Close support howitzers are mentioned under the various tanks themselves. Fascine mentions pre '44 use. The Funnies are the collection seen as a whole with explanations of the various elements. GraemeLeggett 16:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The current edit "A Churchill tank converted into a flame tank" may be slightly misleading. The Croc was an add-on kit that could be reversed. If I am not mistaken, all MK VIIs could become Crocs by fitting the kit, and could fairly easily shed the kit and resume their normal gun tank role. In fact the kit was even fitted to four Shermans. The word "converted" implies more permanence, IMHO. DMorpheus 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Morepheus and have changed 'converted' to 'modifed'; at the same time I have removed the term 'flame tank'. 'Flamethrower' tank maybe, but 'Flame tank' ? It just doesn't sound right.84.130.80.71 16:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The crocodile was a gun equipped tank with a flamethrower attachment - it never stopped being a gun tank even when the flamethrower was fitted. GraemeLeggett 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, they retained their main gun and coax, but they had the burden of towing a large trailer when fitted with the crocodile. Sorry if I was unclear with my comment, but what I meant was that a crocodile could easily shed the whole kit (flame gun, attachments, and trailer) and thus resume the normal Churchill MK VII configuration. DMorpheus 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but the Crocodile must have had a pipe running the length of the tank to carry fuel to the flame projector. Also, there would be a towing hitch with some kind of flexable coupling. Presumably, these weren't found in regular Churchills and would remain in place if a Crocodile was converted to a regular tank (probably too much bother to remove). So if you looked hard enough, a Crocodile would always be distinct from a regular Churchill MK VII. Catsmeat 13:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
a pipe running the length of the tank to carry fuel to the flame projector - you are right - this ran externally underneath the hull of the Churchill Crocodile and then up through a hole in the floor armour plate to the flame projector, and was armoured, resembling a longitudinal ridge running along the underside of the hull from rear to front, offset from centre. If I remember correctly, later Churchills had the aperture in the floor included as-standard and it was normally covered by a bolted-on circular armour-plate disc on non-Crocodiles. Ian Dunster 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Menagerie section on the DD tank the article mentions how they (the DDs), were to be: "launched from landing craft several miles from the beach".

It is my understanding the DDs were only ever intended to be launched when relatively close to the beach, i.e. a few hundred yards. Indeed, on one beach(I think it was Omaha), they were launched from a long way out with disasterous results - only a handful made it.

84.130.70.32 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, British TV programme (it specialised in dives on marine wrecks, can't remember the name) investigated this. Their conclusions (memory subject to the ravages of age and decent wine) were that the DDs were launched too far out (2 miles? - blamed the LCT skippers), but the direct cause was that the DDs were swamped by cross waves. Sea currents at that point were strong and the DDs were drawn across the width of the beach, but as they turned to maintain their course for the beach, they were swamped from the sides. Interestingly there were few, if any, casualties but the assault infantry had lost the armoured support that was immediately available on other beaches. Folks at 137 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The plan at Omaha was to launch from about 6,000 yards out. Where the plan was followed most of the tanks swamped. DMorpheus 02:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The plan was to launch all DD Tanks from about that distance from the shore. The disaster at Omaha was due to rough seas and inexperienced DD crews. The DD's at Sword beach, for example, were launched 5000 yards off shore and 28 out of 32 made it. While the DD system was never very safe or reliable, neither was it the complete deathdrap contraption othes make it out to be. Catsmeat 13:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spigot petard mortar

Petard mortar on AVRE: I added text saying that the petard was unusual because it needed to be reloaded externally, by a crewman pushing a round into the mortar from the hull below. That is a unique design feature. The editor who eliminated the comment seemed to think that feature existed *because* the petard was a mortar. Not so. Mortars have been mounted in other tanks with internal loading - in the Sherman, for example. Mortars need not be muzzleloaders, alhtough they often are. The Petard was a breechloader, but could not be reloaded from inside the turret. DMorpheus 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was working on the basis of it being a spigot mortar and a large bore one at that. GraemeLeggett 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No! If you look up the definition of a Spigot Mortar you will see that it is an extremely unconventional design. Instead of having a pipe you place a projectile in, you have a simple rod which matches with a hole on the base of the projectile. In essence, you feed the mortar into the projectile. If you look at the picture of the petard you can see that this is not the case, it is of traditional design. Pissedpat 09:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You've misintepreted the definition. The "spigot" refers to the internal workings, which may or may not be enclosed in an outer barrel. The PIAT, for example, is also a spigot mortar. The mortar on the AVRE is widely referred to as a spigot more, even by the Royal Engineers Museum: "the turret was adapted to mount a Petard spigot mortar in place of the 2-pounder gun fitted to the standard tank" [1] I am therefore reverting your "correction." Nick Cooper 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:79th armoured division badge.jpg

Image:79th armoured division badge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)