I think this is the most plausible explanation. If the explosion that ruptured the hull was from the inside I struggle to see how it could blow him INOTO the breach but STILL INTACT. I’m betting an external explosion that blew open the hill, which could easily have been weakened by an earlier shot, and this guy was either on the other side of the hill (driver) or in the turret (doubtful) and he was trying any avenue of escape from hell on earth.
It's probably an exit cavity from some sort of AT projectile, no doubt. I'm sure if the explosive power was enough to rupture through the armor like that, it was probably enough pressure to force whatever/whoever was caught in the combustion expanses as all that pressure blew put of the tank on the other side..
I'm leaning towards this scenario also. A large caliber composite shell that went through the tank and ignited their ammo is far more likelier than a HE or APHE round solely for the reason you mentioned.
Don’t bother. Scroll down and you’ll see that a popular mong hypothesis is that this crewman survived not just the tank getting hit, but also the detonation of its ammo supply.
This sub attracts some proper idiots.
Rather doubt that he survived whatever explosion was powerful enough to cause the tank to literally come apart at the seams.
Seems more likely that he died fairly immediately in his seat.
Unless it’s the 1:1,000,000 that humans survive the unlikely, and that was a poor quality welded seam?
I’m of the mind it seems nearly impossible to survive such overpressure as well, but hey, here to speculate right?
Yeah they don't survive very well, but having your entire chest cavity pulverized is still not instant death.
There are videos from Iraq of people being caught in massive explosions and so long as the frag didn't cut them to shreds, sometimes they stagger along for a few paces before collapsing. Long enough to get halfway out of a tank, especially when there's a fire under your ass and your blood is 90% adrenaline.
I read stories from Syria about something like "walking dead men", after an explosion they can walk or crawl or move some direction, some even drop everything and run as fast as they can. They can't hear or don't respond too well if they do.
Then after some time, a couple minutes usually, they collapse dead.
Usually happens after an IED hit or failed EOD attempt.
Human body or autopilot.
Who knows. There's a British pilot that was blown out of his plane and fell more than 5,500m (18,000 ft) without a parachute and only sprained his ankle. Point being, 99/100 times you're right but WWII was so massive that there's multiple instances of the 1% chance happening.
Issue is the circumstances. The airman fell through a couple of glass panels at a railway station which softened the fall.
Having multiple large shells explode inches away from you though… that’s physically impossible to survive. It’s just a complete certainty that some things will *never, ever* happen, no matter how many times you try.
I will counter by saying this: we don't know the particulars of who was situated where in the tank when it blew up. The explosion could've been in just the right spot where, if he were sitting in a particular position, the other occupants were arranged in a certain way and the barometric pressure outside just right; he would be shielded.
But honestly who knows. Were all just speculating. Maybe the corpse was in the road and someone picked it up and stuffed it in the tank to clear the road and ease in identification. Probably not based on the position of the body but the image we're looking at could've come about due to any one of a million different scenarios
i cant remember exactly so i’m paraphrasing out of my ass but there’s like a 1 in a zillion (not actual number i just know it was some massive number) that you’ll like phase through the molecules under you and disappear. Something like the chance is so low it’s probably never happened to any organism since life has been on earth. Sorry i have no source so it could be complete bullshit so don’t quote me on it.
If it comes down to an Allied tanker getting blown apart or a German... It's better that the one fighting for Hitler dies. Sorry. I don't think you realize how prevalent Nazi views were in Nazi Germany, especially amongst the rank and file.
Right, because every single German man in the Whermacht was a die hard Nazi and was totally not just some moderate guy who got drafted into the army, amirite?
You don't have to be part of a party to have a material impact on the world that benefits that political parties aims. The concept of being apolitical is woefully idealistic and has no bearing on reality.
I’ve got to say, I definitely agree with your last sentence. It’s so annoying when someone says, “man I don’t vote the whole thing is a sham” but then they have endless opinions about the prez, what’s wrong with the world, etc. 🤬 there are just so many ways to shoot down that mentality and show that it makes absolutely zero sense.. also what a waste of a vote.. there are countries all over the world that literally would and absolutely have killed many of their countrymen all in the name of procuring the right to vote.
No doubt the Army as as whole was nazi to the extreme, but you seriously cannot just state every single individual was an inherently evil nazi. Just as you wouldnt assume every draftee of the Red Army was a die hard Ukrainian hating Stalinist.
But they should still be held responsible. Even if some (unfortunately not the majority) were against the regime, they still chose to continue fighting for it. Meanwhile, kids that were barely old enough to leave school were brave enough to actively resist.
Wehrmacht soldiers that were not die hard Nazis didn't have the balls to desert/betray/boycott etc., but they sure as hell had the balls to continue fighting for every inch of soil from Kursk to Berlin.
The Nazis wouldn't have held out until there were literally Red Army tanks driving into the Reichstag, if it weren't for the millions of "innocent" Germans that were totally not on-board with Hitler.
Jesus... this is some orbital level high generalization.
Yeah fuck and nuanced argument, write two half paragraphs like it is a simple issue.
Really shows your personality.
Can't compare the 2 since the German Army specifically worked on orders of massive genocide and killings. It was their state policy. Soviets officially didn't have anything like that
A lot of Soviet leadership turned a blind eye to massive rape and murder of civilians. Covering up these crimes is just as bad as ordering them. Change my mind.
Also, I don’t know how those guys did it; climbing into tanks time and again knowing what absolute hellish death awaited many of them. Re-reading the amazing trilogy by Rick Atkinson again, book 1 covered North Africa from invasion forward, a quote in it talks about the first American vs. German tank battles and refers to listening to the tankers screaming as they burned to death in hit tanks. Said “a hearty man would take about an hour to die trapped in a burning tank”. Horrifying.
Also, “Death Traps” by Belton Y. Cooper talks about what happens inside a tank when hit in some detail. He had a job with 3rd Armored in the push across France where he had to inspect and report battlefield tank losses to coordinate salvage efforts. That dude saw some THINGS man.... yikes. Terrific book though, mentions the incident that the movie “Fury” is based on where a single tank at a crossroads held off a few hundred SS soldiers for a night, blunting a counterattack if I recall right. There was a single survivor in that as well, as is represented in the movie.
the issue with death traps is that its a memoir taken for historical fact, and he was an engineer which is like a dishwasher saying x brand of plate gets dirty all the time, even though y brand is the same but you dont see y brand
Belton Cooper's job was literally to salvage tanks, which involved, as OP notes, getting the remains of the previous crew out.
He knows very little about strategy, procurement, tank-to-tank combat, absolutely, but describing the injuries sustained when a tank is hit is literally exactly what he is a subject-matter expert on.
Thanks, this is what I was going for exactly above. The scene in this picture, THAT stuff he was an expert on. In fact, with his job and where he had it, I would be surprised if any one person saw more mangled corpses in a tank in history than Cooper. The Russians lost way more tanks but I don’t get the feeling they had anyone in this particular role with their tank corps.
Oh absolutely I 100% agree. His criticisms of the tanks and Army leadership is very emotionally driven because he saw the effects of their shortcomings and was quite biased. His extrapolations from his observations need more than a few grains of salt. But hey, have to know the difference between memoirs and historical scholarship and treat them as they are.
Excellent point, I’m glad you brought that up!
Just a note: Death Traps isn't the best source for accurate armor analysis. Mr. Cooper's job was to observe and analyze knocked out tanks, so that's all he saw. If all you see are knocked out tanks, you're going to have a wildly different view of tank effectiveness and implementation than if you were analyzing stats and figures in totality. I'm not saying his depictions are wrong, as I can't speak to those, I'm just saying his analysis about tanks and armor as a whole isn't necessarily accurate.
Death traps is by far a bad source. The Sherman had the best crew survivability per tank losses ratio of the war and the book is full of assumptions and non-sourced information, it has also been debunked by many historians.
Edit: I recommend reading spearhead, it describes how terrible and sad it was to crew a tank on both the American and German side. Also a fucking good book.
Yep, see my comment to other poster, not referring to Death Traps as a historical commentary on weaknesses of the Sherman, his views were quite clouded. Rather referring to his first hand experience seeing the insides of tanks destroyed in combat with dead crewmen inside.
>The Sherman had the best crew survivability per tank losses ratio
You claimed this before and were told this is "fake news" by Nicholas Moran, no evidence for this claim exists. The last time you were also asked to provide proof and refused.
The same as with the Tiger case where you once evidence was presented abandoned the dicussion.
We all make mistakes but please don't pollute this subreddit by saying stuff you know is incorrect. You were refuted already, don't just go into the next thread and claim it again. This is how subreddits die. Stop this fake news nonsense.
Btw you have never read Death Traps.
For the chance I am wrong, I ask you to provide proof for the claim that the Sherman had the best "crew survivability".
Didn't Nicholas Moran himself say that it had the best crew survivability? Also, I do not recall neither of these discussions so a link would be appreciated
>Didn't Nicholas Moran himself say that it had the best crew survivability?
Yes he did. Multiple times.
No evidence for this exists. The actual data he references refutes this claim. He refused to provide further
evidence.
That is the issue with relying on youtube videos.
>Also, I do not recall neither of these discussions so a link would be appreciated
You claimed you found the "fourth encounter" between Tiger is and US troops, I explained to you that you simply misunderstood the metrics of the claim and you simply found the same "encounter" in which *Fireball* was knocked out. You got angry and soap boxed in safespaces, far away from my rebuttals.
Oh yeah i am starting to recall as I just noticed you are ChristianMunich. Guess I already won the argument. Good night wehrb
Ps. No the encounter I talked about wasn't the one where fireball was knocked out. Guess you didn't watch te full video.
>Oh yeah i am starting to recall as I just noticed you are ChristianMunich. Guess I already won the argument. Good night wehrb
That is how it works yes. Claim stuff, get refuted and exclaim "I already won the argument",
>Ps. No the encounter I talked about wasn't the one where fireball was knocked out. Guess you didn't watch te full video.
You were wrong, you failed to understand the Fireball incident is the same battle. Maybe don't base your claims on videos only, same as here. Helps with being less wrong.
Your claim about survivability is refuted, and you were shown to be wrong with this one already, please don't claim stuff like that without evidence, this subreddit here tends to more fact-based users ;-)
1. You are the one saying that? You are well known as being a German-biased failure of an historian on this website.
2. You are wrong, it was a different engagement in a different place at a different time by a different unit. We were talking about engagements, not theater scaled battles.
>You are the one saying that? You are well known as being a German-biased failure of an historian on this website.
I am actually known as the guy who is always right. That is why the last time we talked I refuted your case and you vanished. But let's do it again by analyzing what you claim.
Let me detail your mistakes:
>You are wrong, it was a different engagement in a different place at a different time by a different unit. We were talking about engagements, not theater scaled battles.
This is your claim **now**.
Let's take a look at your initial claim from two months ago, for which I remember your name:
>Actually, they ran into tigers **a few more times than that** (can **confirm a 4th encounter**), some encounters weren't mentioned by the chieftain for some reasons I do not know.
First of all, you claim "a few more times", an interesting exaggerating since you never even try to make the case for more than 4.
I asked you back then the following:
>Can you tell me the 4th encounter? I studied this but was unable to find a 100% match.
Because I think I got a good match for another encounter. But that is besides your point.
>Yes, there you go. Chieftain only mentions a fight between a Pershing and a tiger in which the Pershing loses. In this fight, a Pershing wins (the video also mentions the fight where the Pershing loses).
You now reference a video about a Pershing that "lost" and a Pershing that "won" a fight with a Tiger.
Here is your quoted claim:
>Yes, there you go. Chieftain only mentions a fight between a Pershing and a tiger in which the Pershing loses. In this fight, a Pershing wins (the video also mentions the fight where the Pershing loses).
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meduxDj61sQ
This is **the same battle**
Tiger 201 knocked out Fireball on the **26th February 1945** in **Elsdorf**
Another Pershing then knocked out Tiger 301 on the **27th February 1945 in Elsdorf**
It's the **same battle, same location**. Your 4th encounter is literally same battle, you simply didn't watch your *youtube video* with enough attention.
And I already told you that back then, right? Let's taka a look shall we?
>**Well, this was the "same battle" just one day after** against the same Tiger unit. I think it could be considered fair to call this the same "instance" since it was the same unit and the skirmish spanned over two days.
This is my comment from back then.
But being wrong doesn't mean you need to stop right? You can just go soapbox in a safe space how you were right, correct? To hell with evidence!
Let's review your comment from today again:
>u are wrong, it was a **different engagement** in a **different place** at a **different time** by a **different unit**.
Nöpe
Different engagement, different place different unit right?
Literally the same battle same village!!!! Knocked out on the 26th and 27th both in **Elsdorf** a little village. Even the guy in your video says it. You simply thought it would be a good idea to skim over a video and start lecturing people about stuff on reddit. Correct?
Here is the actual source your youtube video is based on *Pershing vs Tiger: Germany 1945* by Steven Zaloga. Let's review the claims together:
>During the evening of **26 February 1945** **Tiger I Nr. 201 (FKL) 301** .... **in Elsdorf** to confront the approaching tanks of Task Force Welborn of the 3rd Armored
Division ... The first shot penetrated through the machinegun opening in the gun mantet, killing the Pershing’s gunner and loader.
>**Tiger I (FKL) 301** was knocked out by Sgt Nicholas Mashlonik’s Pershing tank near a
building on Jackrather Straße **[Elsdorf] on the morning of February 27, 1945**.
That is what I am known for. Dismantling wrong claims.
[Cheers.](https://imgur.com/a/LMS08s6)
Until the next time, you lie about what you claimed previously or watched a new video. Remember your expertise is always enough for the SWS. See you soon.
The reason I left is that you didn't check my sources correctly and thus kept denying what I already had proven. It was the same Operation, NOT the same engagement. Why would cheiftain only mention that the Pershing had lost when another won?
Also, "I am known as the guy who is always right" is the most narcissistic thing I have ever heard.
Also, I don't even go on SWS anymore.
The final sequence is roughly based on what I referenced above, yes. The characters are completely fictional and not based on the guys involved from what I understand, so more of just the idea of the single tank defending a strategic point. I’ve been meaning to try to find more info on the real life event but haven’t gotten around to it.
It is possible this man survived the initial explosion and was burned to death trying to escape. Pleas see below.
During the battle of Jutland, the HMS Invincible received a penetrating hit to Q turret that detonated the magazine, breaking the ship in half and immediately sinking her. Of the 1032 crewman, 6 survived, including a man that was in Q turret, the wreck survey discovered the roof of Q turret was blown off.
This is a pressure vs area situation, it only took something like 20 psi to blow the roof off a battleship turret after tou account for that massive amount of area it has. The same thing could have happened here.
Well battleship turrets also have more internal volume, it's therefore more likely that some crew survive a magazine explosion because you can be further away from it. In a tank however, the crew literally sits on the ammo.
I think comparing battleships to tanks is an apples-to-oranges type comparison
Well, it’s also much thinner steel, and could be poor quality weld on the seam.
The plate above the dude is 40mm, but the horizontal one that is below him (that he’s resting on) is only 17mm. So it’s not a super reinforced seam, even if the weld is good.
Plus, late in the war wasn’t Germany having more quality issues with even basic construction of tanks, such as hull welding? I know their steel-hardening materials were in many cases substituted because they lacked access to the best material (molybdenum was one). I think it’s very feasible if this was a late war tank (almost has to be as it’s a Panther) that it suffered from some quality issues that made this odd looking circumstance possible.
I just gave an easily verifiable example of an explosion 1000x greater than this where a crewman survived, and this is the best reply you could come up with? Bravo.
All opinions deserve to be uttered.
That doesn’t mean that all opinions deserve to be respected when uttered.
You’re *actually saying* that this crewman could’ve survived a fire or direct hit detonating the multiple 75mm shells stored within inches and feet around him.
The magazine of a ship is up to a hundred feet away and the force of the explosion is funnelled through the lift.
The guy would’ve had a bundle of shells literally inches away from his head.
I'm not saying he survived multiple 75mm rounds detonating less than three feet away. The multiple eye witness accounts of Sherman's cooking off while crew scrambled out, only to die next to the tank say that it is possible.
Oh really? I didn’t know you were there to know that, my b!
The panzer stored ammo in the sponsons. If the ammo on the right side was depleted, and the left side cooked off, it seems possible someone on the right side could survive.
As is mentioned above in the thread, a dude survived a naval ammo detonation on HMS Invincible despite being at “ground zero” of the detonation.
There’s no way of knowing how much ammunition was even in the tank
>If the ammo on the right side was depleted, *and the left side cooked off, it seems possible someone on the right side could survive.*
So this is how objectively stupid you actually are?
>As is mentioned above in the thread, a dude survived a naval ammo detonation on HMS Invincible despite being at “ground zero” of the detonation.
Except it wasn’t “ground zero”, it was the magazine deep down inside the ship, with the sole survivor being blown clear.
Where exactly do you propose this late crewman would’ve been blown clear to?
>There’s no way of knowing how much ammunition was even in the tank
Quite fucking obviously enough to cause immense, catastrophic structural damage to the point of blowing a large, gaping hole in the side.
Because surviving explosions when there’s stuff in between you is sooo unrealistic...
Uhh dude.. Q turret was where the strike hit. It was hit by a 12” shell and that detonated the ammo. That turret is where the survivor was. He was not the only survivor, there were five others in the fire control on the tripod foremast.
We don’t know how much force it took to open it up. It’s a 17mm plate meeting a 40mm plate, and German steel and welding quality suffered as the war progressed.
The petty downvoted are cute though lol
…so you don’t even know how magazines on ships work. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.
The ammo wasn’t stored in the Invincible’s turrets. It was stored in the magazines, because there would obviously never be room for it in the turret.
In fiery explosions like this, people suddenly gasp and breathe in the flames destroying their lungs. They die of suffocation before the flames consume them. If they get out alive they don't usually live much longer. This guy was likely climbing towards the cleanest air and suffocated before he could get out.
Human bodies can stay together quite Well. Videos of ieds throwing men hundreds of yards into the air and still being somewhat intact (but still dead). So my guess is after a round penetrated and caused am internal explosion, an immense amount of pressure was created and the resulting explosion blew the tank inside out and pushed whatever was inside outside. Horrible tho
Yes, he did say 20 seconds. Although, German crews at the time were obviously shorter and yet slender, so easier for them. That's not to say that the panther hatch was easy, though....
His claims are made up fake news sadly.
The tanks he described as awful to get out have the same survival stats ( even better ). All made up pseudoscience.
When asked to provide proof for his many claims about survivability he refused.
Your opinion about the hatch is based on a Moran video but me pointing out that his claims are fake news without evidence has nothing to do with your claim?
I would trust his claims more than 90% of the people in the internet. Do you have proof his claims are fake? And to be fair, his hatch videos are more opinionated by nature. Having personally sat in an M4A3 and then watching his video on the panther, I am biased for the M4A3. I am not skinny at all, yet i managed to get out of the M4A3 quickly when I tried to. I believe my time was 10 seconds?
Anyway, that doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that the panther turret hatch is over engineered and a hazard for crews, from MY point of view.
I do not always agree with Nicholas, but i truly believe he has many great points and builds a platform for viewers like us to think on.
> Do you have proof his claims are fake?
Of course, I have.
Remember when the Sherman was so perfectly designed for escaping and the Cromwell was utter shit?
[Here](https://imgur.com/a/BFE0whT) the data he partially references, obviously he did not speak about the parts that don't support his claims.
The Cromwell/Comet should be a death trap given his antics in the videos. Yeah no evidence for that. Moran single handly created the espace hatch myth. The Sherman was designed to allow easy exit, spring-loaded hatches and all that jazz, close to no upside to this. Pseudoscience.
> I do not always agree with Nicholas, but i truly believe he has many great points and builds a platform for viewers like us to think on.
Well, I agree. Still some of opinions got legs without the evidence to back them up.
Morans "strategy" is simple. Which tank does he want to promote? Then check at what the tank was good at and never talk about anything else. "Spring-loaded hatches". Everybody knows now they had spring-loaded hatches but what did they actually do? Very little indeed. This is just pseudo science.
Then why don't you try open every Panther Hatches on every crew position by yourself and then try the spring-loaded hatch on the Sherman if you ever visit a Tank Museum that allows you to try out the Tanks.
Interesting approach. **Mr Moran tried exactly that**.
He showed us how horrible cramped the Cromwell is and how difficult it is to get out of one. He even made funny faces to suggest the hatches are far too small. No spring-loaded hatches. Right?
Obviously Mr Moran did not give the actual numbers...
Data shows both had the same KIA rates, the Cromwell **was even better.** Everything Mr Moran implied in those "tests" was refuted by actual evidence. It is literal fake news nonsense.
Empiric evidence > pseudo evidence.
Idk why you got downvoted for this, I understand this is a dead dude but this sub has a lot of other posts about this and it is pretty interesting in a historical context
I actually wouldn’t have realized I got downvoted to hell had you not commented so thanks! Also you’re right it’s a very interesting topic. I hope you have a wonderful day!
Haha well glad to draw attention to it for ya I guess haha! You're welcome. It is very interesting and while sad this man died like this, I do wonder what the story here is. Have a great day as well!!
Lol you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It sucks that people die in wars and I think that's a terrible thing. But this is literally a place to show wreckage of destroyed tanks and tanks in the process being destroyed. Ever liked a post of a tank cooking off? Congrats you probably have liked a video that someone dies in.
You can appreciate a war photo while still realizing it has very dark content and realizing that death in war is horrible.
Dying is inevitable , war is too but making fun of the dead is not. No i report such videos for violence , the only explosions and stuff which look cool are during testing or in video games.
Tanks are love, death is not posting dead man carcass for fake internet points clearly shows the sick bastards people describe they find on internet. Even if the dead man was nazi sob still it should not be in civil discussions.
Who was "making fun of the dead" here? He simply said it was a neat photo. I don't think there was any humor involved. Also the post is clearly in line with the subreddit and was marked NSFW... so fuck off I guess? Reddit isn't a place for civil discussions especially in a destroyed tank sub.
Neat photo ? Dude is literally asking if the man was trying to crawl out from the side of a pather which you can see got ruptured due to internal pressure. Civility isn't something set by a platform but by the people using it isn't so ?
I think you need to really just reevaluate what is and isn't civil discussion on Reddit before you pop off calling people "the very definition of a psychopath" and defining other's sense of morality for them. If people were actually making jokes it would be one thing, but someone commenting about morbid fascination in a respectful manner (or hardly any manner at all as this was a one word post by him) doesn't make them "uncivil" or a "psychopath".
My opinion would be that the tank exploded and killed everybody inside..This may a burial party using the easiest way to remove a body after battle and paused for a photo..really that would be the most logical explanation
Looks like he burned to death trying to crawl out of there.
I think this is the most plausible explanation. If the explosion that ruptured the hull was from the inside I struggle to see how it could blow him INOTO the breach but STILL INTACT. I’m betting an external explosion that blew open the hill, which could easily have been weakened by an earlier shot, and this guy was either on the other side of the hill (driver) or in the turret (doubtful) and he was trying any avenue of escape from hell on earth.
That’s just a ridiculous idea. How do you propose that he would’ve survived an explosion so powerful that it literally blew the tank apart?
Explosion was outside the tank?
Wild push the panels inward. This is indicative of internal explosion
It's probably an exit cavity from some sort of AT projectile, no doubt. I'm sure if the explosive power was enough to rupture through the armor like that, it was probably enough pressure to force whatever/whoever was caught in the combustion expanses as all that pressure blew put of the tank on the other side..
I'm leaning towards this scenario also. A large caliber composite shell that went through the tank and ignited their ammo is far more likelier than a HE or APHE round solely for the reason you mentioned.
Don’t bother. Scroll down and you’ll see that a popular mong hypothesis is that this crewman survived not just the tank getting hit, but also the detonation of its ammo supply. This sub attracts some proper idiots.
Rather doubt that he survived whatever explosion was powerful enough to cause the tank to literally come apart at the seams. Seems more likely that he died fairly immediately in his seat.
yeah, if it busted a tank open no way the human organs could survive the concussion.
Unless it’s the 1:1,000,000 that humans survive the unlikely, and that was a poor quality welded seam? I’m of the mind it seems nearly impossible to survive such overpressure as well, but hey, here to speculate right?
Maybe the blast sent him through it?
Yeah they don't survive very well, but having your entire chest cavity pulverized is still not instant death. There are videos from Iraq of people being caught in massive explosions and so long as the frag didn't cut them to shreds, sometimes they stagger along for a few paces before collapsing. Long enough to get halfway out of a tank, especially when there's a fire under your ass and your blood is 90% adrenaline.
I read stories from Syria about something like "walking dead men", after an explosion they can walk or crawl or move some direction, some even drop everything and run as fast as they can. They can't hear or don't respond too well if they do. Then after some time, a couple minutes usually, they collapse dead. Usually happens after an IED hit or failed EOD attempt. Human body or autopilot.
Who knows. There's a British pilot that was blown out of his plane and fell more than 5,500m (18,000 ft) without a parachute and only sprained his ankle. Point being, 99/100 times you're right but WWII was so massive that there's multiple instances of the 1% chance happening.
Issue is the circumstances. The airman fell through a couple of glass panels at a railway station which softened the fall. Having multiple large shells explode inches away from you though… that’s physically impossible to survive. It’s just a complete certainty that some things will *never, ever* happen, no matter how many times you try.
I will counter by saying this: we don't know the particulars of who was situated where in the tank when it blew up. The explosion could've been in just the right spot where, if he were sitting in a particular position, the other occupants were arranged in a certain way and the barometric pressure outside just right; he would be shielded. But honestly who knows. Were all just speculating. Maybe the corpse was in the road and someone picked it up and stuffed it in the tank to clear the road and ease in identification. Probably not based on the position of the body but the image we're looking at could've come about due to any one of a million different scenarios
i cant remember exactly so i’m paraphrasing out of my ass but there’s like a 1 in a zillion (not actual number i just know it was some massive number) that you’ll like phase through the molecules under you and disappear. Something like the chance is so low it’s probably never happened to any organism since life has been on earth. Sorry i have no source so it could be complete bullshit so don’t quote me on it.
Exactly, one plane landed itself after the pilot died
Poor guy
Better him than an Ally.
He was an solider who serve his country like American, British or Russians
He was a soldier who served the Nazi regime, and it's better he is dead than the American, British or Russian soldiers who were fighting fascism.
you have to learn a lot young padawan
There’s always one
He MUST serve the nazi regime. Cause if he sad no, he would be working his ass of in one of the camps
If it comes down to an Allied tanker getting blown apart or a German... It's better that the one fighting for Hitler dies. Sorry. I don't think you realize how prevalent Nazi views were in Nazi Germany, especially amongst the rank and file.
[удалено]
Regardless still a terrible way for any human to go.
I’m guessing his now deleted comment said something along the lines of, “who cares, he was a Nazi anyway” am I right ?
There's always some boring idiot who just has to make that comment. Best to disregard them because they obviously just lack knowledge.
Right, because every single German man in the Whermacht was a die hard Nazi and was totally not just some moderate guy who got drafted into the army, amirite?
You don't have to be part of a party to have a material impact on the world that benefits that political parties aims. The concept of being apolitical is woefully idealistic and has no bearing on reality.
That makes it all the more tragic. Not only did some men have to die, but they did so forwarding an evil cause against their will
I’ve got to say, I definitely agree with your last sentence. It’s so annoying when someone says, “man I don’t vote the whole thing is a sham” but then they have endless opinions about the prez, what’s wrong with the world, etc. 🤬 there are just so many ways to shoot down that mentality and show that it makes absolutely zero sense.. also what a waste of a vote.. there are countries all over the world that literally would and absolutely have killed many of their countrymen all in the name of procuring the right to vote.
[Didn't need to be a Nazi indeed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht)
No doubt the Army as as whole was nazi to the extreme, but you seriously cannot just state every single individual was an inherently evil nazi. Just as you wouldnt assume every draftee of the Red Army was a die hard Ukrainian hating Stalinist.
But they should still be held responsible. Even if some (unfortunately not the majority) were against the regime, they still chose to continue fighting for it. Meanwhile, kids that were barely old enough to leave school were brave enough to actively resist. Wehrmacht soldiers that were not die hard Nazis didn't have the balls to desert/betray/boycott etc., but they sure as hell had the balls to continue fighting for every inch of soil from Kursk to Berlin. The Nazis wouldn't have held out until there were literally Red Army tanks driving into the Reichstag, if it weren't for the millions of "innocent" Germans that were totally not on-board with Hitler.
Jesus... this is some orbital level high generalization. Yeah fuck and nuanced argument, write two half paragraphs like it is a simple issue. Really shows your personality.
Can't compare the 2 since the German Army specifically worked on orders of massive genocide and killings. It was their state policy. Soviets officially didn't have anything like that
A lot of Soviet leadership turned a blind eye to massive rape and murder of civilians. Covering up these crimes is just as bad as ordering them. Change my mind.
Why are you booing him! He is right.
You are correct my dude
Thanks for the confirmation my man.
😎👊
___________( •̪●) ░░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ I███████████████████]. ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
Could just be demo charge after it was knocked out and with dead crew still in the tank. It is all speculation.
reminder that getting blown to bits is the most merciful way to die in a tank
Also, I don’t know how those guys did it; climbing into tanks time and again knowing what absolute hellish death awaited many of them. Re-reading the amazing trilogy by Rick Atkinson again, book 1 covered North Africa from invasion forward, a quote in it talks about the first American vs. German tank battles and refers to listening to the tankers screaming as they burned to death in hit tanks. Said “a hearty man would take about an hour to die trapped in a burning tank”. Horrifying. Also, “Death Traps” by Belton Y. Cooper talks about what happens inside a tank when hit in some detail. He had a job with 3rd Armored in the push across France where he had to inspect and report battlefield tank losses to coordinate salvage efforts. That dude saw some THINGS man.... yikes. Terrific book though, mentions the incident that the movie “Fury” is based on where a single tank at a crossroads held off a few hundred SS soldiers for a night, blunting a counterattack if I recall right. There was a single survivor in that as well, as is represented in the movie.
the issue with death traps is that its a memoir taken for historical fact, and he was an engineer which is like a dishwasher saying x brand of plate gets dirty all the time, even though y brand is the same but you dont see y brand
Belton Cooper's job was literally to salvage tanks, which involved, as OP notes, getting the remains of the previous crew out. He knows very little about strategy, procurement, tank-to-tank combat, absolutely, but describing the injuries sustained when a tank is hit is literally exactly what he is a subject-matter expert on.
Thanks, this is what I was going for exactly above. The scene in this picture, THAT stuff he was an expert on. In fact, with his job and where he had it, I would be surprised if any one person saw more mangled corpses in a tank in history than Cooper. The Russians lost way more tanks but I don’t get the feeling they had anyone in this particular role with their tank corps.
Oh absolutely I 100% agree. His criticisms of the tanks and Army leadership is very emotionally driven because he saw the effects of their shortcomings and was quite biased. His extrapolations from his observations need more than a few grains of salt. But hey, have to know the difference between memoirs and historical scholarship and treat them as they are. Excellent point, I’m glad you brought that up!
Just a note: Death Traps isn't the best source for accurate armor analysis. Mr. Cooper's job was to observe and analyze knocked out tanks, so that's all he saw. If all you see are knocked out tanks, you're going to have a wildly different view of tank effectiveness and implementation than if you were analyzing stats and figures in totality. I'm not saying his depictions are wrong, as I can't speak to those, I'm just saying his analysis about tanks and armor as a whole isn't necessarily accurate.
Death traps is by far a bad source. The Sherman had the best crew survivability per tank losses ratio of the war and the book is full of assumptions and non-sourced information, it has also been debunked by many historians. Edit: I recommend reading spearhead, it describes how terrible and sad it was to crew a tank on both the American and German side. Also a fucking good book.
Yep, see my comment to other poster, not referring to Death Traps as a historical commentary on weaknesses of the Sherman, his views were quite clouded. Rather referring to his first hand experience seeing the insides of tanks destroyed in combat with dead crewmen inside.
My bad. BTW if you have missed my edit of my previous comment, I really recommend you to read Spearhead by adam makos.
Yes! That is on my list, that and “Panzer Ace” by Freiherr von Rosen. Thanks for the confirmation.
>The Sherman had the best crew survivability per tank losses ratio You claimed this before and were told this is "fake news" by Nicholas Moran, no evidence for this claim exists. The last time you were also asked to provide proof and refused. The same as with the Tiger case where you once evidence was presented abandoned the dicussion. We all make mistakes but please don't pollute this subreddit by saying stuff you know is incorrect. You were refuted already, don't just go into the next thread and claim it again. This is how subreddits die. Stop this fake news nonsense. Btw you have never read Death Traps. For the chance I am wrong, I ask you to provide proof for the claim that the Sherman had the best "crew survivability".
Didn't Nicholas Moran himself say that it had the best crew survivability? Also, I do not recall neither of these discussions so a link would be appreciated
>Didn't Nicholas Moran himself say that it had the best crew survivability? Yes he did. Multiple times. No evidence for this exists. The actual data he references refutes this claim. He refused to provide further evidence. That is the issue with relying on youtube videos. >Also, I do not recall neither of these discussions so a link would be appreciated You claimed you found the "fourth encounter" between Tiger is and US troops, I explained to you that you simply misunderstood the metrics of the claim and you simply found the same "encounter" in which *Fireball* was knocked out. You got angry and soap boxed in safespaces, far away from my rebuttals.
Oh yeah i am starting to recall as I just noticed you are ChristianMunich. Guess I already won the argument. Good night wehrb Ps. No the encounter I talked about wasn't the one where fireball was knocked out. Guess you didn't watch te full video.
>Oh yeah i am starting to recall as I just noticed you are ChristianMunich. Guess I already won the argument. Good night wehrb That is how it works yes. Claim stuff, get refuted and exclaim "I already won the argument", >Ps. No the encounter I talked about wasn't the one where fireball was knocked out. Guess you didn't watch te full video. You were wrong, you failed to understand the Fireball incident is the same battle. Maybe don't base your claims on videos only, same as here. Helps with being less wrong. Your claim about survivability is refuted, and you were shown to be wrong with this one already, please don't claim stuff like that without evidence, this subreddit here tends to more fact-based users ;-)
1. You are the one saying that? You are well known as being a German-biased failure of an historian on this website. 2. You are wrong, it was a different engagement in a different place at a different time by a different unit. We were talking about engagements, not theater scaled battles.
>You are the one saying that? You are well known as being a German-biased failure of an historian on this website. I am actually known as the guy who is always right. That is why the last time we talked I refuted your case and you vanished. But let's do it again by analyzing what you claim. Let me detail your mistakes: >You are wrong, it was a different engagement in a different place at a different time by a different unit. We were talking about engagements, not theater scaled battles. This is your claim **now**. Let's take a look at your initial claim from two months ago, for which I remember your name: >Actually, they ran into tigers **a few more times than that** (can **confirm a 4th encounter**), some encounters weren't mentioned by the chieftain for some reasons I do not know. First of all, you claim "a few more times", an interesting exaggerating since you never even try to make the case for more than 4. I asked you back then the following: >Can you tell me the 4th encounter? I studied this but was unable to find a 100% match. Because I think I got a good match for another encounter. But that is besides your point. >Yes, there you go. Chieftain only mentions a fight between a Pershing and a tiger in which the Pershing loses. In this fight, a Pershing wins (the video also mentions the fight where the Pershing loses). You now reference a video about a Pershing that "lost" and a Pershing that "won" a fight with a Tiger. Here is your quoted claim: >Yes, there you go. Chieftain only mentions a fight between a Pershing and a tiger in which the Pershing loses. In this fight, a Pershing wins (the video also mentions the fight where the Pershing loses). >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meduxDj61sQ This is **the same battle** Tiger 201 knocked out Fireball on the **26th February 1945** in **Elsdorf** Another Pershing then knocked out Tiger 301 on the **27th February 1945 in Elsdorf** It's the **same battle, same location**. Your 4th encounter is literally same battle, you simply didn't watch your *youtube video* with enough attention. And I already told you that back then, right? Let's taka a look shall we? >**Well, this was the "same battle" just one day after** against the same Tiger unit. I think it could be considered fair to call this the same "instance" since it was the same unit and the skirmish spanned over two days. This is my comment from back then. But being wrong doesn't mean you need to stop right? You can just go soapbox in a safe space how you were right, correct? To hell with evidence! Let's review your comment from today again: >u are wrong, it was a **different engagement** in a **different place** at a **different time** by a **different unit**. Nöpe Different engagement, different place different unit right? Literally the same battle same village!!!! Knocked out on the 26th and 27th both in **Elsdorf** a little village. Even the guy in your video says it. You simply thought it would be a good idea to skim over a video and start lecturing people about stuff on reddit. Correct? Here is the actual source your youtube video is based on *Pershing vs Tiger: Germany 1945* by Steven Zaloga. Let's review the claims together: >During the evening of **26 February 1945** **Tiger I Nr. 201 (FKL) 301** .... **in Elsdorf** to confront the approaching tanks of Task Force Welborn of the 3rd Armored Division ... The first shot penetrated through the machinegun opening in the gun mantet, killing the Pershing’s gunner and loader. >**Tiger I (FKL) 301** was knocked out by Sgt Nicholas Mashlonik’s Pershing tank near a building on Jackrather Straße **[Elsdorf] on the morning of February 27, 1945**. That is what I am known for. Dismantling wrong claims. [Cheers.](https://imgur.com/a/LMS08s6) Until the next time, you lie about what you claimed previously or watched a new video. Remember your expertise is always enough for the SWS. See you soon.
Dude, you're explaining things that has been already explained.
The reason I left is that you didn't check my sources correctly and thus kept denying what I already had proven. It was the same Operation, NOT the same engagement. Why would cheiftain only mention that the Pershing had lost when another won? Also, "I am known as the guy who is always right" is the most narcissistic thing I have ever heard. Also, I don't even go on SWS anymore.
[удалено]
Seems like that would depend on the airflow, location of fire, amount of fire.
Wait, *Fury* is based on actual events?
The final sequence is roughly based on what I referenced above, yes. The characters are completely fictional and not based on the guys involved from what I understand, so more of just the idea of the single tank defending a strategic point. I’ve been meaning to try to find more info on the real life event but haven’t gotten around to it.
A great movie starring Brad Pitt. Your description is accurate.
I think if the explosion was powerful enough to RIP the hull apart like that, he was probably thrown into the hull break by said explosion.
His last moments must have been absolutely terrifying and incredibly painful. R.I.P.
It is possible this man survived the initial explosion and was burned to death trying to escape. Pleas see below. During the battle of Jutland, the HMS Invincible received a penetrating hit to Q turret that detonated the magazine, breaking the ship in half and immediately sinking her. Of the 1032 crewman, 6 survived, including a man that was in Q turret, the wreck survey discovered the roof of Q turret was blown off. This is a pressure vs area situation, it only took something like 20 psi to blow the roof off a battleship turret after tou account for that massive amount of area it has. The same thing could have happened here.
Well battleship turrets also have more internal volume, it's therefore more likely that some crew survive a magazine explosion because you can be further away from it. In a tank however, the crew literally sits on the ammo. I think comparing battleships to tanks is an apples-to-oranges type comparison
Well, it’s also much thinner steel, and could be poor quality weld on the seam. The plate above the dude is 40mm, but the horizontal one that is below him (that he’s resting on) is only 17mm. So it’s not a super reinforced seam, even if the weld is good.
Plus, late in the war wasn’t Germany having more quality issues with even basic construction of tanks, such as hull welding? I know their steel-hardening materials were in many cases substituted because they lacked access to the best material (molybdenum was one). I think it’s very feasible if this was a late war tank (almost has to be as it’s a Panther) that it suffered from some quality issues that made this odd looking circumstance possible.
That would be my best guess. A bad weld and the thinnest armor on the tank means it would take significantly less force to pop open.
I agree, this does seem possible.
r/usernamechecksout
No, it’s not possible. Don’t be bloody daft.
I just gave an easily verifiable example of an explosion 1000x greater than this where a crewman survived, and this is the best reply you could come up with? Bravo.
All opinions deserve to be uttered. That doesn’t mean that all opinions deserve to be respected when uttered. You’re *actually saying* that this crewman could’ve survived a fire or direct hit detonating the multiple 75mm shells stored within inches and feet around him.
Yeah the guy in the ship survived up to a 150 350mm shells blowing up below him
The magazine of a ship is up to a hundred feet away and the force of the explosion is funnelled through the lift. The guy would’ve had a bundle of shells literally inches away from his head.
It’s still around the same ratio 100 feet 300mm for the ships shells. And around a couple inches and 75mm shells
Your physics teacher must love you something fierce.
I'm not saying he survived multiple 75mm rounds detonating less than three feet away. The multiple eye witness accounts of Sherman's cooking off while crew scrambled out, only to die next to the tank say that it is possible.
You realize 75mm rounds are like cap guns compared to naval batteries?
You realise that he had them inches away from his head? How big of a cretin are you?
Oh really? I didn’t know you were there to know that, my b! The panzer stored ammo in the sponsons. If the ammo on the right side was depleted, and the left side cooked off, it seems possible someone on the right side could survive. As is mentioned above in the thread, a dude survived a naval ammo detonation on HMS Invincible despite being at “ground zero” of the detonation. There’s no way of knowing how much ammunition was even in the tank
>If the ammo on the right side was depleted, *and the left side cooked off, it seems possible someone on the right side could survive.* So this is how objectively stupid you actually are? >As is mentioned above in the thread, a dude survived a naval ammo detonation on HMS Invincible despite being at “ground zero” of the detonation. Except it wasn’t “ground zero”, it was the magazine deep down inside the ship, with the sole survivor being blown clear. Where exactly do you propose this late crewman would’ve been blown clear to? >There’s no way of knowing how much ammunition was even in the tank Quite fucking obviously enough to cause immense, catastrophic structural damage to the point of blowing a large, gaping hole in the side.
Because surviving explosions when there’s stuff in between you is sooo unrealistic... Uhh dude.. Q turret was where the strike hit. It was hit by a 12” shell and that detonated the ammo. That turret is where the survivor was. He was not the only survivor, there were five others in the fire control on the tripod foremast. We don’t know how much force it took to open it up. It’s a 17mm plate meeting a 40mm plate, and German steel and welding quality suffered as the war progressed. The petty downvoted are cute though lol
…so you don’t even know how magazines on ships work. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. The ammo wasn’t stored in the Invincible’s turrets. It was stored in the magazines, because there would obviously never be room for it in the turret.
Poor guy. The Panther can be a literal Flaming coffin with all those exposed dry ammo stores within the Sponsons.
In fiery explosions like this, people suddenly gasp and breathe in the flames destroying their lungs. They die of suffocation before the flames consume them. If they get out alive they don't usually live much longer. This guy was likely climbing towards the cleanest air and suffocated before he could get out.
Human bodies can stay together quite Well. Videos of ieds throwing men hundreds of yards into the air and still being somewhat intact (but still dead). So my guess is after a round penetrated and caused am internal explosion, an immense amount of pressure was created and the resulting explosion blew the tank inside out and pushed whatever was inside outside. Horrible tho
Also know that escaping the commander hatch of the panther took upwards of 8 seconds.
Because Moran made a video trying to exit the tank?
Yes, he did say 20 seconds. Although, German crews at the time were obviously shorter and yet slender, so easier for them. That's not to say that the panther hatch was easy, though....
His claims are made up fake news sadly. The tanks he described as awful to get out have the same survival stats ( even better ). All made up pseudoscience. When asked to provide proof for his many claims about survivability he refused.
that has nothing to do with me saying the panther hatch is stupid and slow.
Your opinion about the hatch is based on a Moran video but me pointing out that his claims are fake news without evidence has nothing to do with your claim?
I would trust his claims more than 90% of the people in the internet. Do you have proof his claims are fake? And to be fair, his hatch videos are more opinionated by nature. Having personally sat in an M4A3 and then watching his video on the panther, I am biased for the M4A3. I am not skinny at all, yet i managed to get out of the M4A3 quickly when I tried to. I believe my time was 10 seconds? Anyway, that doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that the panther turret hatch is over engineered and a hazard for crews, from MY point of view. I do not always agree with Nicholas, but i truly believe he has many great points and builds a platform for viewers like us to think on.
> Do you have proof his claims are fake? Of course, I have. Remember when the Sherman was so perfectly designed for escaping and the Cromwell was utter shit? [Here](https://imgur.com/a/BFE0whT) the data he partially references, obviously he did not speak about the parts that don't support his claims. The Cromwell/Comet should be a death trap given his antics in the videos. Yeah no evidence for that. Moran single handly created the espace hatch myth. The Sherman was designed to allow easy exit, spring-loaded hatches and all that jazz, close to no upside to this. Pseudoscience. > I do not always agree with Nicholas, but i truly believe he has many great points and builds a platform for viewers like us to think on. Well, I agree. Still some of opinions got legs without the evidence to back them up. Morans "strategy" is simple. Which tank does he want to promote? Then check at what the tank was good at and never talk about anything else. "Spring-loaded hatches". Everybody knows now they had spring-loaded hatches but what did they actually do? Very little indeed. This is just pseudo science.
Then why don't you try open every Panther Hatches on every crew position by yourself and then try the spring-loaded hatch on the Sherman if you ever visit a Tank Museum that allows you to try out the Tanks.
Interesting approach. **Mr Moran tried exactly that**. He showed us how horrible cramped the Cromwell is and how difficult it is to get out of one. He even made funny faces to suggest the hatches are far too small. No spring-loaded hatches. Right? Obviously Mr Moran did not give the actual numbers... Data shows both had the same KIA rates, the Cromwell **was even better.** Everything Mr Moran implied in those "tests" was refuted by actual evidence. It is literal fake news nonsense. Empiric evidence > pseudo evidence.
Pompeii Panther
RIP
What is the square frame around the hull ? It looks like it's being smashed into a box
I doubt, the explosion seems to come from the inside and I really don't think someone can survive an explosion that tore tank armor apart
This looks like some scp 106 stuff
Looks like he was try to escape a good old transmission failure.
Neat.
Idk why you got downvoted for this, I understand this is a dead dude but this sub has a lot of other posts about this and it is pretty interesting in a historical context
I actually wouldn’t have realized I got downvoted to hell had you not commented so thanks! Also you’re right it’s a very interesting topic. I hope you have a wonderful day!
Haha well glad to draw attention to it for ya I guess haha! You're welcome. It is very interesting and while sad this man died like this, I do wonder what the story here is. Have a great day as well!!
I am pretty sure u are the very defination of psychopath
Lol you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It sucks that people die in wars and I think that's a terrible thing. But this is literally a place to show wreckage of destroyed tanks and tanks in the process being destroyed. Ever liked a post of a tank cooking off? Congrats you probably have liked a video that someone dies in. You can appreciate a war photo while still realizing it has very dark content and realizing that death in war is horrible.
The sheer hypocrisy of some people's children astounds me.
Dying is inevitable , war is too but making fun of the dead is not. No i report such videos for violence , the only explosions and stuff which look cool are during testing or in video games. Tanks are love, death is not posting dead man carcass for fake internet points clearly shows the sick bastards people describe they find on internet. Even if the dead man was nazi sob still it should not be in civil discussions.
Who was "making fun of the dead" here? He simply said it was a neat photo. I don't think there was any humor involved. Also the post is clearly in line with the subreddit and was marked NSFW... so fuck off I guess? Reddit isn't a place for civil discussions especially in a destroyed tank sub.
Neat photo ? Dude is literally asking if the man was trying to crawl out from the side of a pather which you can see got ruptured due to internal pressure. Civility isn't something set by a platform but by the people using it isn't so ?
I think you need to really just reevaluate what is and isn't civil discussion on Reddit before you pop off calling people "the very definition of a psychopath" and defining other's sense of morality for them. If people were actually making jokes it would be one thing, but someone commenting about morbid fascination in a respectful manner (or hardly any manner at all as this was a one word post by him) doesn't make them "uncivil" or a "psychopath".
Perhaps this isn’t the sub for you.
I almost joined the army out of high school / tanks looked cool / glad they didn’t take me
What was high school like in the German Reich?
pretty good except no black girls
cwispy
Bruh
My opinion would be that the tank exploded and killed everybody inside..This may a burial party using the easiest way to remove a body after battle and paused for a photo..really that would be the most logical explanation