Battle of Puffendorf

[Delta Tank]

To All,

Watched a YouTube video entitled the “When US Shermans Faced Off Against Germany's Heavy Panzers at Puffendorf” and while reading the comment section I came across this comment:

“@soultraveller5027
10 days ago (edited)
Oh they caught on, it was primarily because of the same reason why they did not take the offer of using british invented and designed specialist engineer armoured vehicles to help clear minefields, destroy bunkers, british bridlayer) and lots of other specialist tanks , The most deadly was the Crocodile flamethrower tank, the most effective bunker destroyer in ww2 , nope didn't want it. all these Tanks mostly based on a sherman chassis , they were the brainchild of a British officer, major General Percy Hobart ,all the vehicles were nicknamed ''Hobart's funnies'' these were employed by the british the 79th specialist armoured division created in ww2 , before the Normandy invasion and canadians too, at sword, gold ,juno, these specialist engineering tanks the first of its kind and what is referred to in modern terms as REME Royal Engineers and copied by the US military as ''Sappers'' they stormed the beaches of normandy, and took on the german beach defences, obstacles concrete gun emplacements, destroying it and clearing a path for british and canadian soldiers, this reduced the british and canadian casualties, unlike the americans forces landing at Omaha, they did begrungley accept the british DD floatation tanks, a sherman tank that could swim basically, unfortunately for the americans they released their tanks to far away and the majority sank the odd few that made it, were too few to stop the slaughter, a passing US destroyer USS Frankford saved the day by knocking out the german guns that had pinned down the entire US forces at Omaha, all because they the americans were too proud to accept help from the british it was not made in america . all true .”

I tried to post a response on YouTube but, I can’t figure out how to get it to post. Oh well! So, my response is below. Any criticism or improvements on my response would be appreciated. I don’t have my reference material with me and I read

“Everything you wrote about the Americans not wanting the “funnies” is not true! The US Army requested all “funnies” that were based on the Sherman chassis. Richard C Anderson Jr in his book entitled “Cracking Hitler’s Atlantic Wall” devoted a whole chapter to explain what was requested. The British could not build enough “funnies” for themselves and if they could have built some for the US Army I don’t know where the additional LCTs would be found to transport them to the beach.
The two battalions of DD Tanks, the 741st and the 743d landed approximately 32 tanks by or around H-Hour. The 741st launched their tanks as ordered at 6,000 yards from the beach. This was way too far due to weather and sea conditions, two tanks swam in and three tanks were landed directly on the beach for a total of 5 out of 32. The 743d Tank Battalion on the western end of the beach decided to land the tanks directly on the beach, landing 28 out of 32 tanks, one LCT struck a mine losing 4 tanks. The wading tank companies came next, each battalion bringing 16 wading tanks and 8 dozer tanks. By approximately 0800 on D-Day the 1st Infantry Division had about 78 tanks on the beach.
According to Richard C Anderson Jr in his book cited above the effectiveness of the “funnies” on D-Day is over rated.
There were more than one destroyer giving direct fire assistance to the men on Omaha Beach, more like 5 or 6.
The “not made in America” line in your response is just a load of crap.”

Mike

[Michael Kenny]

Youtube comments are (in my opinion) even more 'amateur' than Facebook comments. If you like arguing with schoolkids, fools and borderline idiots (guilty as charged) then its a great place to perfect your skills but nothing else. Youtube is fine for entertainment value but completely useless as a source of reliable information. Hardly anyone reads more than the top half-a-dozen comments anyway so you are basically shouting in an empty room.
Also Youtube have perfected ego-massaging and when you view a film where you have made comments it always puts 'your' comments at the top. No one else but you sees them at the top.

[Delta Tank]

Youtube comments are (in my opinion) even more 'amateur' than Facebook comments. If you like arguing with schoolkids, fools and borderline idiots (guilty as charged) then its a great place to perfect your skills but nothing else. Youtube is fine for entertainment value but completely useless as a source of reliable information. Hardly anyone reads more than the top half-a-dozen comments anyway so you are basically shouting in an empty room.
Also Youtube have perfected ego-massaging and when you view a film where you have made comments it always puts 'your' comments at the top. No one else but you sees them at the top.

Thank you.

Mike

[Tom from Cornwall]

Thank you.

Mike

Mike,

For what it's worth, I'd agree with Michael and suggest it's not worth wasting your time.

We could discuss here though.

Leaving aside both Rich's interpretation that the effectiveness of the "Funnies" on D Day was over rated and the questions of whether there was spare productive capacity for the UK to provide some to US forces on D-Day or extra LCTs could have been provided, I've always wondered if there was a similar US programme to develop armoured engineer vehicles for the use of US Army engineers. Most modern armies seem to think armoured engineer vehicles have a useful place in order of battle; if not during WW2, when did the US Army see the light?

Regards

Tom

[Aber]

Leaving aside both Rich's interpretation that the effectiveness of the "Funnies" on D Day was over rated

Rich's conclusion was that it was overrated by some; his opinion was more balanced.

I've always wondered if there was a similar US programme to develop armoured engineer vehicles for the use of US Army engineers.

Apologies for wiki links but, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34_Calliope
for bunker buster

Although Calliopes were originally manufactured before D-Day and were envisioned for bunker-busting duties on the beaches, the proposal was dropped due to the tank's high center of gravity which made its transportation unsteady.

Plus dozers, bridges and mine vehicles

M4 Sherman

Dozer: The bulldozer blade was a valuable battlefield tool on the WWII M4 Sherman tank. A 1943 field modification added the hydraulic dozer blade from a Caterpillar D8 to a Sherman. The later M1 dozer blade was standardized to fit any Sherman with VVSS suspension and the M1A1 would fit the wider HVSS. Some M4s made for the Engineer Corps had the blades fitted permanently and the turrets removed. In the early stages of the 1944 Battle of Normandy before the Culin Cutter, breaking through the Bocage hedgerows relied heavily on Sherman dozers.
M4 Doozit: Engineer Corps' Sherman dozer with demolition charge on wooden platform and T40 Whizbang rocket launcher (the Doozit did not see combat but the Whizbang did).
Bridgelayer: The US field-converted a few M4 in Italy with A-frame-supported bridge and heavy rear counter-weight to make the Mobile Assault Bridge. British developments for Shermans included the fascine (used by 79th Armoured Division), Crib, Twaby Ark, Octopus, Plymouth (Bailey bridge), and AVRE (SBG bridge).
Mine-Clearing: British conversions included the Sherman Crab. The US developed an extensive array of experimental types:
T15/E1/E2: Series of mine resistant Shermans based on the T14 kit. Cancelled at war's end.
Mine Exploder T1E1 Roller (Earthworm): Three sets of 6 discs made from armor plate.
Mine Exploder T1E2 Roller: Two forward units with 7 discs only. Experimental.
Mine Exploder T1E3/M1 Roller (Aunt Jemima): Two forward units with five 10' discs. Most widely used T1 variant, adopted as the M1. (picture)
Mine Exploder T1E4 Roller: 16 discs.
Mine Exploder T1E5 Roller: T1E3/M1 w/ smaller wheels. Experimental.
Mine Exploder T1E6 Roller: T1E3/M1 w/ serrated edged discs. Experimental
Mine Exploder T2 Flail: British Crab I mine flail.
Mine Exploder T3 Flail: Based on British Scorpion flail. Development stopped in 1943.
Mine Exploder T3E1 Flail: T3 w/ longer arms and sand filled rotor. Cancelled.
Mine Exploder T3E2 Flail: E1 variant, rotor replaced with steel drum of larger diameter. Development terminated at war's end.
Mine Exploder T4: British Crab II mine flail.
Mine Exploder T7: Frame with small rollers with two discs each. Abandoned.
Mine Exploder T8 (Johnny Walker): Steel plungers on a pivot frame designed to pound on the ground. Vehicle steering was adversely affected.
Mine Exploder T9: 6' Roller. Difficult to maneuver.
Mine Exploder T9E1: Lightened version, but proved unsatisfactory because it failed to explode all mines.
Mine Exploder T10: Remote control unit designed to be controlled by the following tank. Cancelled.
Mine Exploder T11: Six forward firing mortars to set off mines. Experimental.
Mine Exploder T12: 23 forward firing mortars. Apparently effective, but cancelled.
Mine Exploder T14: Direct modification to a Sherman tank, upgraded belly armor and reinforced tracks. Cancelled.
Mine Excavator T4: Plough device. Developed during 1942, but abandoned.
Mine Excavator T5/E1/E2: T4 variant w/ v-shaped plough. E1/E2 was a further improvement.
Mine Excavator T5E3: T5E1/E2 rigged to the hydraulic lift mechanism from the M1 dozer kit to control depth.
Mine Excavator T6: Based on the v-shape/T5, unable to control depth.
Mine Excavator T2/E1/E2: Based on the T4/T5's, but rigged to the hydraulic lift mechanism from the M1 dozer kit to control depth.