Came across these in a Picture Post from April 1940 and thought I might start a series of bad advice we've come across. (if this is a more general post mods please relocate) I know people obviously used the mattress in 1940, but I wonder if anyone really did try stopping a tank with a railway sleeper like this? Watch this space:
You'd think that by that time (in 1940.. after Finland-Soviet war) they would have known that the molotov cocktail was far more efficient? What amazes me is that a shot under water from a pistol is not so far reaching as I thought: Glock 22 Underwater High Speed Video - YouTube So..can I conclude that diving in water for a metre (3 feet) is sufficient to escape from bullets ? (I think of the men in the water being fired on by Jap/german submarine personnel in WW2 ) How deep/far would a ww2 MG bullet have reached under water (especially at a 30 degr angle from horizntl )?
I'd put more money on the sleeper stopping the tank than the mattress stopping a bullet, but I can't say that I'd want to try either.
How deep/far would a ww2 MG have reached under water ? About 2 feet. I'm sure there's a Youtube video of an MG42 being fired into a small tank of water - the tank survives.
There is quite a difference between "wanna-be-tanks" as the Pz.Kfw.1, the Vickers light tanks or even the Russo-Finnish T-26 with their fragile track mechanism's and the later issues, with more rigid tracks and bodies. The first "tanks" - basically all light vehicles - were in fact no more than armoured cars on tracks, which were very vulnerable to anything, including bad weather!
It's not a sleeper it's a bit of railway track. Yep, and it weighs between 30 and 50 pounds per linear foot, so those two guys must have been pretty strong The mattress might have stopped a pistol round but that's about it. I saw a display of .30 rifle rounds in Springfield armory in the eighties. The two different rounds went though 27 inches of oak. You can see them in the link below Testing and Experimenting - Springfield Armory National Historic Site
It's not a sleeper it's a bit of railway track. Owen - of course, I stand corrected - but yes Dave, they must have been pretty tough guys to even lift the piece of track, never mind jam it into the tracks of a moving tank. I wondered what they thought the following tanks - and infantry - would do, watch them in awe and wonderment as they lifted the railway track? This is of course theoretical anti-tank advice- the molotov cocktail and blanket is advice number 1 and 'the big grenade' number 3, which I'll post soon. I don't know if the mattress was 'official' advice or unofficial from Picture Post, but events in May/June 1940 in France would prove the mattress didn't work against aeroplane strafing and the advice was discontinued.
The mattress might have stopped a pistol round but that's about it. I saw a display of .30 rifle rounds in Springfield armory in the eighties. The two different rounds went though 27 inches of oak. You can see them in the link below. The basic idea behind the stopping power of soft matter, such as blankets, pillows, mattresses, towels, etc. is the drag that causes the bullet to slow down. 27" of oak penetration is interesting, but I wanna bet you that that same bullet fired on 27 free hanging towels would see your bullet on the ground somewhere half way ...
The basic idea behind the stopping power of soft matter, such as blankets, pillows, mattresses, towels, etc. is the drag that causes the bullet to slow down. 27" of oak penetration is interesting, but I wanna bet you that that same bullet fired on 27 free hanging towels would see your bullet on the ground somewhere half way ... I bet you are right. That'd be a hard one to model. I'd like to see someone try it on the range. Now a 20 mm from a BF 109, on the other hand .........
What amazes me is that a shot under water from a pistol is not so far reaching as I thought: I notice the gun is actually under water, would the bullet travel further if it was fired from just above the surface?
I notice the gun is actually under water, would the bullet travel further if it was fired from just above the surface? Hmm , you re right...the barrel is filled with water which makes it exra hard to leave the barrel at top speed !
Re the mattress on top of the car... It may or may not have hindered "live" rounds... But IIRC, during the Blitz it was a very popular modification as it afforded quite a degree of protection from spent rounds, bomb fragments, AA shell fragments etc. falling back to earth again Also - they're not necessarily talking about nice sprung mattresses such as we're all familiar with; in those days, the springs were more usually in the bedstead And the mattresses could be heavy horsehair, or kapok or down-filled...rather than being mostly air as we're used to today.
Now a 20 mm from a BF 109, on the other hand ......... The Me 109 20mm ammo was not AP, it's fuse was optimized to blow after hitting a thin alluminium sheet or even thinner canvas and do damage inside the plane, IMO the 7.92 solid shot would be deadlier against that sort of protection than the 20mm cannon, WW2 era mattresses are nearly as good as sandndbags at stopping bullets. A 30mm hartkernmunition round from a Mk 103 would go throught the mattress the car 's roof and probably the engine block as well but not an MG FF or MG FFM round., but no Mk 103 in 1940.
As promised - methods 1&2 - the molotov cocktail and the 'big hand grenade'. That is big - well, you know what they say, 'big hands, big hand grenade'. To be fair, The Molotov was obviously the preferred method and the railway track was number 3 in the list. I add a picture from Britain's Modern Army, an Odham's post Dunkirk publication from 1941 I think, but I believe it was published well into the late 1940's? I particularly like the drawings, the type of which had been around since before photography, particularly in 'war' publications. The idealisation of the artist's impression is quite compelling - I loved these sort of things when I was a kid and still do - they convey a sense of security that just can't have reflected the reality of late 1940.
That tank in pic 1 in post #16 is a Neubaufahrzeug used in Norway. Neubaufahrzeug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Owen; the Picture Post had a fairly vague notion of what sorts of tanks the Germans were using - there are three drawings of PzKpf I &II types and the third is the 'Neubaufahrzeug' you identify above. As Gooseman said, perhaps you could slam a railway track into the tracks of a light tank, but I wouldn't fancy trying it on a Mark IV? And wasn't the Neubaufahrzeug a bit of a monster? 24 tons and 21 feet long - I'd fancy the molotov or even the big hand grenade before I'd chance my arm - and probably both of them - with the railway track.
Petrol-soaked blankets were used in earnest in Villers-Bocage in 1944. Mostly this was to brew up Tigers that had already been knocked out, but possibly one live Tiger was driven on to the guns by the technique.
Then of course there was that sticky bomb that you were supposed to be able to run up to a tank and stick it on to the casing....... ignoring the fact that the occupants might have means of "dissuading" you and the fact that the bomb could just as easily stick to you! However it did prove somewhat effective and lead to German armour having a stippled type of coating to prevent a strong bonding of the glue.... so it must have worked in some situations...
