Flintlock76It had it moments, but really didn't do a good job of telling the story of the "Battle of the Bulge."
Most experts certainly agree with you there.
I accept it as a drama, as opposed to a documentary, so there is always going to be some license taken in such movies.
For me it was my first real exposure to Robert Shaw, so that became a benchmark of sorts that I measured him by in his other roles, both before that movie as well as after. Watching the Bond flick with "Col. Hessler" in mind was particularly entertaining.
I still get goose bumps when he orders those two tanks to "get that junk off the bridge"....classic!
Convicted One Flintlock76 As long as we've brought up German artillery, I've always relished that segment in the movie "Battle of the Bulge" where the German tank (regrettably just a US tank painted to look like a Tiger) awaited that train at the end of the tunnel, firing at the last moment. I've always wondered how such a tank would have faired with that locomotive, having all that inertia behind it, piling into it at speed? My guess is, nobody goes home tonight.
Flintlock76 As long as we've brought up German artillery,
I've always relished that segment in the movie "Battle of the Bulge" where the German tank (regrettably just a US tank painted to look like a Tiger) awaited that train at the end of the tunnel, firing at the last moment.
I've always wondered how such a tank would have faired with that locomotive, having all that inertia behind it, piling into it at speed?
My guess is, nobody goes home tonight.
I concur, "...nobody goes home tonight."
That movie could have been a lot better than it was. As far as I'm concerned it was all downhill after "Panzerlied." It had it moments, but really didn't do a good job of telling the story of the "Battle of the Bulge."
Flintlock76As long as we've brought up German artillery,
As long as we've brought up German artillery, how's about a firing demonstration of a German WW2 Pak 40 75mm anti-tank gun, courtesy of the Smithsonian Channel series "The Weapons Hunter." (The series host goes a bit overboard on the hyperbole, so be prepared. )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMm-k26qMaA
Mind you, firing that thing does NOT look like a pleasant experience! And considering the "signature" it generates I'd say the gun crew had to have better been "on target," 'cause their opponents were going to know exactly where they were firing from! Tankers don't like it when you shoot at 'em, and tend to react negatively!
Betty was cute as hell, but Jane Russell is the one for me. For all her hyper-feminine shape, she wasn't a girly-girl.
Thanks Flintlock- I know they made something like that. And that's what we thought those old boxcars on the base were. At least that was the word we got. We never went near them. There were several piers with rail access and often trains would be run out on them.
Flintlock76Betty Grable wasn't that big...
Her measurements at her prime would have done a 5'10" Amazon justice. She was all of 5'4"...
I'll bet she travelled by trains, though...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
DOH!
Had you not said that, I would have totally missed what he meant.
Convicted One Murphy Siding Whereas reference to "twin 40’" might cause confusion over who was the favorite WWII pinup queen? Just doin' my part to prevent the "train" aspect from being ignored.
Murphy Siding Whereas reference to "twin 40’" might cause confusion over who was the favorite WWII pinup queen?
Just doin' my part to prevent the "train" aspect from being ignored.
Betty Grable wasn't that big...
Murphy SidingWhereas reference to "twin 40’" might cause confusion over who was the favorite WWII pinup queen?
88s had rates of fire from 15-25 rounds per minute depending on model. Most did not have muzzle breaks to reduce recoil except some Flk 41s though they did have a good hydro-pneumatic recoil. But against the typical allied fighter bombers, a 20 or 37mm cannon is plenty. And you would want its higher rate of fire, 120 rpm or 480 rpm for the quad (Vierling) version.
54light15 When I was stationed at Norfolk, Va in the 1970s in the Navy there was a small train yard at Gate one of the Navy Operating Base at Hampton Roads. In the train yard were about 20 old navy gray boxcars that didn't go anywhere. We all understood, or assumed that there were anti-aircraft weapons mounted in those cars and in the event they were needed, the sides would drop away and guns would go into action. I imagine it was only a rumour but it was kind of fun to think about Lionel cars in 1 to 1 scale. Lionel did make such an O scale car, didn't they?
When I was stationed at Norfolk, Va in the 1970s in the Navy there was a small train yard at Gate one of the Navy Operating Base at Hampton Roads. In the train yard were about 20 old navy gray boxcars that didn't go anywhere. We all understood, or assumed that there were anti-aircraft weapons mounted in those cars and in the event they were needed, the sides would drop away and guns would go into action. I imagine it was only a rumour but it was kind of fun to think about Lionel cars in 1 to 1 scale. Lionel did make such an O scale car, didn't they?
They sure did! On and off since 1959. Here's the last version from 2001.
http://www.lionel.com/products/minuteman-car-6-26762/
zardoz charlie hebdo Firing an 88 from a moving train would be a sure-fire derailment. As I have no military or weapons training; might I ask, would that be due to recoil?
charlie hebdo Firing an 88 from a moving train would be a sure-fire derailment.
Firing an 88 from a moving train would be a sure-fire derailment.
As I have no military or weapons training; might I ask, would that be due to recoil?
Absolutely! The Flak 88 was a BIG gun! If the recoil didn't cause a derailment chances are it might have shattered the flatcar it was sitting on. And mind you, the famous 88 wasn't the biggest flak gun the Germans had, they also had a 128mm flak gun as well.
I found a video of a restored Flak 88 being fired. I've heard about this particular gun, the cartridge auto-eject feature has been deactivated to save wear and tear on the shell casings they've got (Hitler isn't making any more of them) and they're firing the gun with reduced charges for the same reason. Still, it's enough to give you the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_bGczFQIOc
Anti-aircraft guns on trains? Pretty much limited to 20mm and 37mm guns, plus machine guns as needed. The Germans may have used 40mm guns as well, they bought the Swedish Bofors design like the Brits and Americans did (The Swedes were neutral, they'd sell to anyone) but I'm not sure they mounted any on trains.
Convicted One charlie hebdo Firing an 88 from a moving train would be a sure-fire derailment. The rate of fire would leave a bit to be desired too, but I just thought the concept of "twin 88s" sounded cool. Leaving no room for confusion as to which side might be fielding them.
The rate of fire would leave a bit to be desired too, but I just thought the concept of "twin 88s" sounded cool. Leaving no room for confusion as to which side might be fielding them.
Whereas reference to "twin 40’" might cause confusion over who was the favorite WWII pinup queen?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
charlie hebdoFiring an 88 from a moving train would be a sure-fire derailment.
Convicted One Murphy Siding Yes, if the cargo was important enough, So the thought of a turreted gondola sporting twin 88s to 'give those flyboys something to think about', isn't all that far fetched?
Murphy Siding Yes, if the cargo was important enough,
So the thought of a turreted gondola sporting twin 88s to 'give those flyboys something to think about', isn't all that far fetched?
.
Convicted OneSo the thought of a turreted gondola sporting twin 88s to 'give those flyboys something to think about', isn't all that far fetched?
Not sure about 88s -- the cited 'mobile' armament is 20mm and 37mm cannon. From what I see, these were 'nested' in a four-sided well of light 'armor' plate, similar to the arrangements on U-boats and perhaps of comparable deadliness to many kinds of prospective attack. I suspect you'd need or want some kind of recoilless provision for heavy-caliber rifles (note that the muzzle brake is noted as omitted, for 'clearance' reasons) and this would be No Fun fired from inside an enclosure of nearly any kind...
Note the provision of the 'spare gun' that is only crewed if the train reverses direction.
Apparently the Russians had 'flak trains' as early as 1941, under the air-defense command (PVO). By 1943 the German alternative was well-enough known that the report referenced by this article was produced. (Note the distinction between 'ground defense' transported by rail and actual train-borne armament against aircraft. NB also the nominal prohibition against shooting through energized overhead catenary... one wonders if there were special hurry-up arrangements for this.)
There are other references to light antiaircraft defense on special trains, but I don't think those involve the dedicated high-altitude rifles with timed or proximity explosive shells that characterize actual 'flak' fire.
Convicted One Flintlock76 In all the combat footage I've seen of planes strafing trains I've never seen a boiler explosion due to machine gun fire. In the Sylvester Stallone movie "The Expendables 2" the movie begins with a sequence depicting a train bound for a prison, with a rescue attempt being made by a helicopter in pursuit. The train just happened to have an anti-aircraft battery "locked and loaded" to protect the train in transit. I realize that anything can happen in Hollywood, but do you think that anti-aircraft weapons were ever employed in real life on trains for the purpose of defending against hostile aircraft?
Flintlock76 In all the combat footage I've seen of planes strafing trains I've never seen a boiler explosion due to machine gun fire.
In the Sylvester Stallone movie "The Expendables 2" the movie begins with a sequence depicting a train bound for a prison, with a rescue attempt being made by a helicopter in pursuit.
The train just happened to have an anti-aircraft battery "locked and loaded" to protect the train in transit.
I realize that anything can happen in Hollywood, but do you think that anti-aircraft weapons were ever employed in real life on trains for the purpose of defending against hostile aircraft?
Flintlock76In all the combat footage I've seen of planes strafing trains I've never seen a boiler explosion due to machine gun fire.
Leo_AmesBeen wondering about this for a long time, but let's say for instance a flight of TBM Avengers was launched from a carrier to attack a Japanese rail yard, how were the aileron control cables handled with the folding wings?
See a description of the Grumman "Sto-Wing" system to see how this was done. This is of course a more complicated system geometrically than just a hinge fold, so having a 'demountable joint' with controlled play is essential.
The Avenger even had remote hydraulic fold, so this is even more important.
Some aircraft had an arrangement where the cable 'carrier' extended on linkage so the overall tension remained constant across the joint. The paddle-and-coaxial-shaft arrangement is probably better.
If anyone here is familiar with naval jet Phantoms: the original versions had cable flight controls and 'automatic' remote-actuation folding wings, with no particular cable adjustment issues I know of... you may find this hard to believe, but I have photographic evidence:
There are some other pictures on the Web of the feat being accomplished... might make for Starfighter-like high strafing speeds down on the deck chasing trains, though...
Leo_Ames Been wondering about this for a long time, but let's say for instance a flight of TBM Avengers was launched from a carrier to attack a Japanese rail yard, how were the aileron control cables handled with the folding wings? On something like NASA's Super Guppy with the hinged nose section for loading/unloading, all the control cables to the ailerons and tail section must be manually disconnected before opening and then manually reconnected before takeoff.
Been wondering about this for a long time, but let's say for instance a flight of TBM Avengers was launched from a carrier to attack a Japanese rail yard, how were the aileron control cables handled with the folding wings?
On something like NASA's Super Guppy with the hinged nose section for loading/unloading, all the control cables to the ailerons and tail section must be manually disconnected before opening and then manually reconnected before takeoff.
"...making people disppear by various methods."
Probably after they beat the wherabouts of any stashed loot out of them, that is, if they had any suspicions.
Hey, want to do some more treasure hunting with Dr. Mark?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HUYoLIVxs8&t=18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxjCPHe1kyQ
I'll tell you, Dr. Mark can tell more about a subject in ten minutes or less then the History Channel can tell in an hour!
You know, considering the chaos, confusion, the attempts to restore order, and the discovery of Nazi loot all over the place in immediate post-war Europe I'm reminded of the truth of an old cowboy saying...
"There's bound to be a lot of tore-up ground where a herd's stampeded!"
Flintlock76At any rate, how could they get it out of there with no-one taking notice?
Well, the whole point is that they 'couldn't.' And, as a more or less direct result, they didn't. Think of what a GI did with his little entrenching shovel when mortar fire became directed at him -- one source said he would virtually 'melt into the ground'. They would do as much of the same for the train as they could, in the time they had. And then try to make their escape personally, since 'they couldn't take it with them' as it were.
There are whole stories about treasure where everyone who knew the location was dead... and the Russians could be extremely effective, both in war and the postwar 'peace', at making people disappear by various methods.
Maybe. But I still don't buy the story. At any rate, how could they get it out of there with no-one taking notice?
Not to say that there isn't stuff stashed around Poland and the former East Germany, we don't know for certain, but we'll just have to see just when and if it ever surfaces.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.