Radar guided anti-tank donkey?

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by deddygetty</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by george seal</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br />It'd be nice to know what the heck that depicts. It appears to be a Panzerfaust, but what's going on with the rest of that I really wonder.

The Germans did experiment, fwiw, with using dogs armed with mines against tanks. The experimient didn't work, as the dogs were trained by feeding them under tanks. As the Germans trained them, they trained them under German tanks, which is where the mine armed dogs would go when released in the field.

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that this was an effort to get a donnkey to use a Panzerfaust. I just have no idea what this is, other than a Panzerfaust with blast plate underneath a donkey.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I had the impression it was the Russians who used anti tank dogs. The dogs indeed tended to run under familiar tanks. Also the germans got used to killing any stray dog they could find in the Eastern Front so getting dogs was a problem.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My dad's WW II outfit, the 99th Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop, "captured" a black German Shephard from an SS unit, complete with skull and crossbones on the collar, during the Ruhr Pocket campaign. They named the dog Sgt. Nero and kept him till well after the end of the war. The last members of the troop to leave Gerolzhofen recalled Sgt. Nero chasing the train for several miles before they lost sight of him. There are stories in the 99th Recon history about Sgt. Nero and "missions" he was involved in. This picture was taken in front of the troops headquarters in Gerolzhofen, where they were guarding prisoners after the war.
Image



Don't attract gunfire. It irritates the people around you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Capa, the war photographer, wrote in his memoirs that he also acquired an Alsatian in France that had been a German officer's dog. He kept it for the rest of the war.

The story of the dog chasing the train is sort of sad. Nice looking dog.

Pat


patbailey
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:08 pm
Location: USA

For once, I have a serious response on this thread.

The reason the dogs in the Russian mine-dog experiments didn't "work" correctly was that the tanks they were fed under for training (the Russian tanks) were fueled by diesel, and the German "target" tanks were gasoline-fuelled. Since the dogs' sense of smell is intimately tied to that of taste, they wouldn't go looking for food under tanks that smelled wrong. The experiment resulted in a few Russian tanks being destroyed and lots of dogs being wiped out by both sides. The Germans shot them largely on suspicion, the story of mine-dogs having leaked, and the Russians shot them so they wouldn't blow up the wrong tanks.

In my humble opinion, just another example of why the Soviet system failed.
Patrick

It is impossible to have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition.- R. Kipling
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by patbailey</i>
<br />For once, I have a serious response on this thread.

The reason the dogs in the Russian mine-dog experiments didn't "work" correctly was that the tanks they were fed under for training (the Russian tanks) were fueled by diesel, and the German "target" tanks were gasoline-fuelled. Since the dogs' sense of smell is intimately tied to that of taste, they wouldn't go looking for food under tanks that smelled wrong. The experiment resulted in a few Russian tanks being destroyed and lots of dogs being wiped out by both sides. The Germans shot them largely on suspicion, the story of mine-dogs having leaked, and the Russians shot them so they wouldn't blow up the wrong tanks.

In my humble opinion, just another example of why the Soviet system failed.
Patrick

It is impossible to have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition.- R. Kipling
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

German tanks were all produced from the onset as diesels starting with the PzKpfw IV, which had a Mayback HL 120 V12 diesel, according to one text I have handy here. The PzKpfw IV went into production in 1936. Indeed, I had thought all German tanks were diesels, but I see where the PzKpfw III originally had a Maybach HL 108 TR V-12 gasoline engine, with later versions having a Maybach HL 120 diesel. The switch to the D model saw the introduction of the HL 120. The main version of the PzKpfw III was the E model, with all prior versions really being developmental. The PzKpfw III E went into production in 1939. The E model also had the HL 120, but strangly, it developed 20 less horsepower at 3000 rpm than the same variant in the D. This is the same engine, I believe, that was in the PzKpfw IV. At any rate, the III E was the production version. If I'm correct on the engine, then the overwhelming majority of PzKpfw IIIs used against the Soviet Union would have been diesels. All of the PzKpfw IVs were diesels. On the other hand, all of the PzKpfw IIs were gasoline engined, however. All of the later German tanks, such as the Tigers and Panthers, were diesel

To complicate this further, Soviet light tanks, like the T-37 and BT-7, were gasoline engined tanks. The T-34, of course, was a diesel. Interestingly, it used a 12 cylinder, like the PzKpfw, but its diesel developed 500 hp at 1800 rpm, rather than the 300 hp at 3,000 rpm, like the German tank.

Anyhow, the reason I mention this is that the workhorses of the German army were the PzKpfw IIIs and IVs, and they really remained the workhorses even after the Germans introduced the Tiger and Panther. The PzKpfw III E and the PzKpfw IV were diesel engined tanks. It isn't impossible that the dogs were confused by gasoline engined German tanks, but it'd be more likely that they'd run up against diesel tanks. Likewise, some Soviet tanks were gasonline engined also.

I'll note here I'm not an expert on German tanks. I'd frankly been under the impression that all German tanks in WWII were diesels, but I see where the very early, prewar designs, started off as gasoline engined tanks. And the captured Czech tanks were gasoline engined. Likewise, I had thought that all Soviet tanks were diesels, but I see where in actuality all Soviet light tanks were gasoline engined. So, I may be wrong. But I do think that all III Es and IVs were diesels, which would be most German tanks. I'd invite correction if I'm wrong.

Pat

As an aside, looking at this demonstrates that a couple of the often cited maxims of WWII vehicles are incorrect. It isn't true that all German military vehicles were diesels, although I've heard that cited. And it isn't even true that all German tanks were diesels, although most German produced German tanks were diesels. Likewise, I've heard that all Soviet tanks were diesels, but only all Soviet medium and heavy tanks were diesels, and all Soviet light tanks were gasoline.

I guess it still remains the case that all American tanks were gasoline, as, I believe, all English ones were. The US, for a vehicle centric nation, remained oddly unable to really develop a good vehicle diesel for quite a while after Europe had.
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

Perhaps those Italian troops, and these American troops, should visit.

Image

In the first photo, we see one soldier who doesn't seem to be employing his donkey, and in this one, we see a donkey that's being used way too much.

Pat
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

And this soldier from the 10th seems to be looking for a way to stuff his donnkey in his pipe:

Image
Photograph courtesy of the Denver Public Library, Western Heritage Collection.

Pat
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by patbailey</i>
<br />For once, I have a serious response on this thread.

The reason the dogs in the Russian mine-dog experiments didn't "work" correctly was that the tanks they were fed under for training (the Russian tanks) were fueled by diesel, and the German "target" tanks were gasoline-fuelled. Since the dogs' sense of smell is intimately tied to that of taste, they wouldn't go looking for food under tanks that smelled wrong. The experiment resulted in a few Russian tanks being destroyed and lots of dogs being wiped out by both sides. The Germans shot them largely on suspicion, the story of mine-dogs having leaked, and the Russians shot them so they wouldn't blow up the wrong tanks.

In my humble opinion, just another example of why the Soviet system failed.
Patrick

It is impossible to have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition.- R. Kipling
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

German tanks were all produced from the onset as diesels starting with the PzKpfw IV, which had a Mayback HL 120 V12 diesel, according to one text I have handy here. The PzKpfw IV went into production in 1936. Indeed, I had thought all German tanks were diesels, but I see where the PzKpfw III originally had a Maybach HL 108 TR V-12 gasoline engine, with later versions having a Maybach HL 120 diesel. The switch to the D model saw the introduction of the HL 120. The main version of the PzKpfw III was the E model, with all prior versions really being developmental. The PzKpfw III E went into production in 1939. The E model also had the HL 120, but strangly, it developed 20 less horsepower at 3000 rpm than the same variant in the D. This is the same engine, I believe, that was in the PzKpfw IV. At any rate, the III E was the production version. If I'm correct on the engine, then the overwhelming majority of PzKpfw IIIs used against the Soviet Union would have been diesels. All of the PzKpfw IVs were diesels. On the other hand, all of the PzKpfw IIs were gasoline engined, however. All of the later German tanks, such as the Tigers and Panthers, were diesel

To complicate this further, Soviet light tanks, like the T-37 and BT-7, were gasoline engined tanks. The T-34, of course, was a diesel. Interestingly, it used a 12 cylinder, like the PzKpfw, but its diesel developed 500 hp at 1800 rpm, rather than the 300 hp at 3,000 rpm, like the German tank.

Anyhow, the reason I mention this is that the workhorses of the German army were the PzKpfw IIIs and IVs, and they really remained the workhorses even after the Germans introduced the Tiger and Panther. The PzKpfw III E and the PzKpfw IV were diesel engined tanks. It isn't impossible that the dogs were confused by gasoline engined German tanks, but it'd be more likely that they'd run up against diesel tanks. Likewise, some Soviet tanks were gasonline engined also.

I'll note here I'm not an expert on German tanks. I'd frankly been under the impression that all German tanks in WWII were diesels, but I see where the very early, prewar designs, started off as gasoline engined tanks. And the captured Czech tanks were gasoline engined. Likewise, I had thought that all Soviet tanks were diesels, but I see where in actuality all Soviet light tanks were gasoline engined. So, I may be wrong. But I do think that all III Es and IVs were diesels, which would be most German tanks. I'd invite correction if I'm wrong.

Pat

As an aside, looking at this demonstrates that a couple of the often cited maxims of WWII vehicles are incorrect. It isn't true that all German military vehicles were diesels, although I've heard that cited. And it isn't even true that all German tanks were diesels, although most German produced German tanks were diesels. Likewise, I've heard that all Soviet tanks were diesels, but only all Soviet medium and heavy tanks were diesels, and all Soviet light tanks were gasoline.

I guess it still remains the case that all American tanks were gasoline, as, I believe, all English ones were. The US, for a vehicle centric nation, remained oddly unable to really develop a good vehicle diesel for quite a while after Europe had.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As a follow up to all of this, it occurs to me that diesel is an easier fuel to synthetically produce than gasoline. We often hear about how the Germans made synthetic fuel during the war, but the diesel sythetic aspect of it had not previously occured to me.

Diesels have all sorts of advantages over gasoline engines. Their one significant disadvantage is that they can jell up when cold. Indeed, I think (but I'm unsure) that German tankers were required to turn their engines over periodically in nearly any weather to make sure they'd start. I may, however, be in error on that point. Anyhow, its intersting that the two armies that fought in the coldest weather, both relied on diesels.

Pat
User avatar
Couvi
Society Member
Posts: 3870
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:30 am
Location: Marlow, OK

Society Member

Donation 5th

Content Author

Pat,

The US Army continued to produce large, gasoline powered vehicles well into the 1960’s. My understanding is that the Navy had dibs on all the diesel, consequently the Army had to continue to use gasoline.

I was once a crewman on an M88 Medium Recovery Vehicle, which was powered by a gasoline-fed, Air-Cooled, V-type, Super-charged, 1,790 cubic inch(AVGS-1790), V-12 engine that sported two fuel pumps, two gear-driven 24-inch super-chargers (not turbo-chargers), four magnetos and 24 spark plugs. http://www.answers.com/topic/m88-armour ... ry-vehicle

A tune-up took an entire day for the whole crew. When it was tuned properly it sent a 6 inch diameter blue flame about 18 inches out of each muffler. When it was in need of a tune-up it could blow out a large, yellow flame the size of a Buick. It was always a joy to see that big flame-out when being followed too closely by a truck. It was also more than capable of setting fire to whatever was being towed, especially disconcerting when towing a tank with a full combat load of ammunition. This engine was also used in the M-47 tank and the M-103 Tank. It used four gallons of gasoline per mile and was later replaced by a diesel engine of the same configuration.

This is the carbureted model with two up-draft carbs: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... tml?page=2
It produced 800+ horsepower. http://www.bankspower.com/Leno-tankCar1.cfm . I think the supercharged model produced about 1,000 horsepower.

Couvi

<i>"Cavalier sans Cheval"</i>
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br />Pat,

The US Army continued to produce large, gasoline powered vehicles well into the 1960’s. My understanding is that the Navy had dibs on all the diesel, consequently the Army had to continue to use gasoline.

I was once a crewman on an M88 Medium Recovery Vehicle, which was powered by a gasoline-fed, Air-Cooled, V-type, Super-charged, 1,790 cubic inch(AVGS-1790), V-12 engine that sported two fuel pumps, two gear-driven 24-inch super-chargers (not turbo-chargers), four magnetos and 24 spark plugs. http://www.answers.com/topic/m88-armour ... ry-vehicle

A tune-up took an entire day for the whole crew. When it was tuned properly it sent a 6 inch diameter blue flame about 18 inches out of each muffler. When it was in need of a tune-up it could blow out a large, yellow flame the size of a Buick. It was always a joy to see that big flame-out when being followed too closely by a truck. It was also more than capable of setting fire to whatever was being towed, especially disconcerting when towing a tank with a full combat load of ammunition. This engine was also used in the M-47 tank and the M-103 Tank. It used four gallons of gasoline per mile and was later replaced by a diesel engine of the same configuration.

This is the carbureted model with two up-draft carbs: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... tml?page=2
It produced 800+ horsepower. http://www.bankspower.com/Leno-tankCar1.cfm . I think the supercharged model produced about 1,000 horsepower.

Couvi

<i>"Cavalier sans Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks Couvi.

By the way, I stand corrected. <u>Only the PzKpfw III E and PzKpfw IV</u> were diesel. Pat Bailey is correct. Tigers and Panthers were gasoline engined. I just looked it up.

So, I fully admit being off the mark again. German Panthers and Tigers, and tanks acquired from other countries, were gasoline, much to my surprise.

Pat
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br />
I was once a crewman on an M88 Medium Recovery Vehicle, which was powered by a gasoline-fed, Air-Cooled, V-type, Super-charged, 1,790 cubic inch(AVGS-1790), V-12 engine that sported two fuel pumps, two gear-driven 24-inch super-chargers (not turbo-chargers), four magnetos and 24 spark plugs.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The M88 is amazing. At least at one time, it was the heaviest armored vehicle in the US inventory.



Pat
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26967
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
Contact:

Society Member

Donor Palm Leaf

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pat Holscher</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Couvi</i>
<br />Pat,

The US Army continued to produce large, gasoline powered vehicles well into the 1960’s. My understanding is that the Navy had dibs on all the diesel, consequently the Army had to continue to use gasoline.

I was once a crewman on an M88 Medium Recovery Vehicle, which was powered by a gasoline-fed, Air-Cooled, V-type, Super-charged, 1,790 cubic inch(AVGS-1790), V-12 engine that sported two fuel pumps, two gear-driven 24-inch super-chargers (not turbo-chargers), four magnetos and 24 spark plugs. http://www.answers.com/topic/m88-armour ... ry-vehicle

A tune-up took an entire day for the whole crew. When it was tuned properly it sent a 6 inch diameter blue flame about 18 inches out of each muffler. When it was in need of a tune-up it could blow out a large, yellow flame the size of a Buick. It was always a joy to see that big flame-out when being followed too closely by a truck. It was also more than capable of setting fire to whatever was being towed, especially disconcerting when towing a tank with a full combat load of ammunition. This engine was also used in the M-47 tank and the M-103 Tank. It used four gallons of gasoline per mile and was later replaced by a diesel engine of the same configuration.

This is the carbureted model with two up-draft carbs: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... tml?page=2
It produced 800+ horsepower. http://www.bankspower.com/Leno-tankCar1.cfm . I think the supercharged model produced about 1,000 horsepower.

Couvi

<i>"Cavalier sans Cheval"</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks Couvi.

By the way, I stand corrected. <u>Only the PzKpfw III E and PzKpfw IV</u> were diesel. Pat Bailey is correct. Tigers and Panthers were gasoline engined. I just looked it up.

So, I fully admit being off the mark again. German Panthers and Tigers, and tanks acquired from other countries, were gasoline, much to my surprise.

Pat
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

To look at this even further, I wonder if my print source by David Miller is correct. I looked it up on line and now I'm really left confused. ’m not an expert, but I believed the PzKpfw III E and PzKpfw IV used the Maybach V-12 inline diesel. Of course, I can only cite those details as I have a book open in front of me stating that. So I could be wrong, if the text is, as I'm certainly no expert. The book is just a desk reference by David Miller. I have some better ones around, and will have to dig them up. The book, however, states diesel.

I looked it up online, as noted, and found quite a few references, but a lot, maybe most, of them were game references, which I don't trust. Here's an example:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah ... h20050902b

This cites the engine as being a Maybach diesel, but it's a reference for a game.

Here's another:

http://commandos.strategyplanet.gamespy ... er_IV.html

This one is likely even less trustworthy. The first is to an Avalon Hill game, which may be more reliable (but I'm not citing it as a source, to be sure).

Wikipedia says gasoline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

So does this:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz4.html

With all this, I frankly admit I'm left confused. Given that the better on line indicate gasoline, I'd tend towards gasoline. The print text was specific, but maybe it’s a flat out error. The same text cites 300 hp at 3,000 rpm, which isn't terribly out of line for the earlier Maybach gasoline engines, but is way out of line for the diesel in the T-34, which supports gasoline.

I'll yield to the experts here, as now I'm frankly confused. I'm surprised by how many varied statements there on it, as they can't all be right. J V, do you know?

This has been interesting to me, in that it pierces one of my long held assumptions. I've heard it stated that "all" German tanks were diesel, and it seems to be a commonly held view. It even shows up as an odd line in the movie Patton (which shows you shouldn't trust a line in a movie. But the sources just don't support it. I thought that they did on the III and IV, but having looked at it more in depth, it seems that there are assertions for gasoline and diesel, for the exact same engine. One of those views is wrong. Given the nature of the on line sources, and the performance of the engine, I really suspect I was completely in error.

Cudos to Pat Bailey here for getting it right.




Pat
deddygetty
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: USA

The exhaust from an M-88 could be a lifesaver at Graf in the winter. Sure wasn't enough room inside to pile all your buddies in.

Don't attract gunfire. It irritates the people around you.
Post Reply