Russian tanks towing 4 barreled AA guns?

[GooglyDoogly]

Guys, we're getting a little off the track. There is NO question about quad .50's being supplied to Russia.

Quad .50's were supplied to Russia.

http://www.o5m6.de/m17.html

The only question is whether quad .50's were towed on two wheeled trailers behind tanks.

Now, I will dig around and find Russian pics of quad .50's on trailers. Which, BTW, I have seen in the past while researching some Ruskie WSC's.

TTT

No one disputes the fact that quad 50s were supplied to Russia. The question is whether the M51s (M17 trailer with M45 quad mount) were.

Apparently, US records said they weren't. And Soviet records said they weren't. No photographs of it in Soviet hands exists, and no account or report that says the Soviet ever used the M51s....So....

And please be sure that the pics you dig up are not post-war pics. I've seen T-34s with T-55 roadwheels, it doesn't mean the T-55 roadhweels were used during WWII

[GooglyDoogly]

For some strange reason this topic is evoking the same sort of passion from GooglyDoogly that it did from a few of the guys on missing-lynx. Not sure why. I have never said it happened. I have never said it probably happened. All i have ever said is that, with eye witness accounts, it possibly could have happened. Hardly the same as the religious argument analogy.

I can't speak for others, but the reason I go to ML was to read and sometimes participate in active debates there. It's quite enjoyable to read about some little known historical event. And I think for the most part, it helped me a lot with my modeling.

But the downside to that is a forum that DEMANDS photographic, or at least official reports as proof in those debates. Which is a good thing. Learning is always good.

The more we learn about WII, the more we debunk those tired old myths.

I myself isn't really looking for pictures. But the lack of accounts on the Soviet side is really puzzling if this is true.

[hotrodrock]

Wow, this has taken on a life of its own. Due to the expendiancy of repairs made on the battlefield and the ingenuity of repair crews, I don't see how anyone can say this or that didn't actually happen. I read on this site quite often how a model J of some vehicle did not have some piece of equipment that a model F had. I will not argue the fact that a model J did not leave the factory with said equipment, but you just cannot say what was or wasn't scavanged and used out of necessity in the field. There were all kinds of very unusual combinations which came about due to the imigination of repair crews. I can easily see Russian crews taking the quad 50 off of a damaged halftrack and using it in who knows what manner. But then I am not one who has to see a picture of something to believe it existed. The vast majority of photos are not photos which were taken in the heat of battle. Hopefully, the discussion will not end up in a "did-did not" situation.

[Threetoughtrucks]

I personally, am not satisfied, to prove a point, looking at written records by the U.S. as to what what was supplied to Russia.

If you look, you will see major differences between what we say we supplied Russia and Russian records as to what they received from us.

We're not talking about a few different, we are talking about sizable differences.

I, personally, believe, the accounts of the German pilot. After all the years, I personally, have many hazy memories of my time in VN. That said, believe me that the few times I was shot at, not in the general area, but shot at me personally. I remember the weather, vivid colors, even smells, everything. I was furious that these guys were shooting at me.... how dare they do that, go shoot at somebody else was my thoughts.

And the pilot says he was shot down six time (?) by AAA fire. If he says 4 barrel units did some of this, next to a tank.... I believe him........

For what that is worth.

TTT

[TEXAS_HOSS]

i agree, you don't forget stuff like that, he seemed like an honest veteran.

[hotrodrock]

Photo is obviously taken in the heat of battle on the Russian steppes in the winter of '44-'45. What other proof is needed?

Where else could you see a snow leopard stalking the crew.

[aferguson]

looks pretty natural back there..

[cranedriver]

Aferg if you dont post that pic on the other forum......

[GooglyDoogly]

I personally, am not satisfied, to prove a point, looking at written records by the U.S. as to what what was supplied to Russia.

If you look, you will see major differences between what we say we supplied Russia and Russian records as to what they received from us.

We're not talking about a few different, we are talking about sizable differences.

I, personally, believe, the accounts of the German pilot. After all the years, I personally, have many hazy memories of my time in VN. That said, believe me that the few times I was shot at, not in the general area, but shot at me personally. I remember the weather, vivid colors, even smells, everything. I was furious that these guys were shooting at me.... how dare they do that, go shoot at somebody else was my thoughts.

And the pilot says he was shot down six time (?) by AAA fire. If he says 4 barrel units did some of this, next to a tank.... I believe him........

For what that is worth.

TTT

Well then, if we're to go that route, we can also believe Soviet accounts that stated they killed hundreds of Tiger tanks during the battle of Kursk.

Because you know, a lot of Soviet tankers there claimed to kill a Tiger. They were there. They swear that they knocked out hundreds of Tiger tanks in that battle.

Of course, historical facts may not agree with them. But who knows, maybe the German records are the one lying, downplaying their losses...

Right?

See the folly of only believing one side?

What makes that German pilot more believable than those Soviet tankers who claimed to kill several Tigers in one battle?

And as for the lend-lease records...if you won't believe the US' own records...I don't know what to tell you.

[GooglyDoogly]

Wow, this has taken on a life of its own. Due to the expendiancy of repairs made on the battlefield and the ingenuity of repair crews, I don't see how anyone can say this or that didn't actually happen. I read on this site quite often how a model J of some vehicle did not have some piece of equipment that a model F had. I will not argue the fact that a model J did not leave the factory with said equipment, but you just cannot say what was or wasn't scavanged and used out of necessity in the field. There were all kinds of very unusual combinations which came about due to the imigination of repair crews. I can easily see Russian crews taking the quad 50 off of a damaged halftrack and using it in who knows what manner. But then I am not one who has to see a picture of something to believe it existed. The vast majority of photos are not photos which were taken in the heat of battle. Hopefully, the discussion will not end up in a "did-did not" situation.

I believe that the reason for this "conflict" is simple. Two groups with two different mindset.

Group 1: Missing-lynx. These are the people who pour through historical archives, search high and low for records or better yet, photographs of their favorite subjects, be it a Tiger, or some Sherman variant. They are the rivet counters of the modeling world.

Group 2: Small Scale HQ. These are the people who enjoy history, more knowledgeable about history than the general public. They enjoy collecting, or bulding models of military subjects, but they don't really care about historical inaccuracies, at least, not major ones. Most, if not all pre-built toys/models have several inaccuracies in them that this group have learned to look over.

Which one of the group is right? BOTH. Missing-lynx is absolutely right in their pursuit to be as historically correct as possible. People like Steven Zaloga, men who did the research and wrote the books about these war machines are the reason we are getting better and better models and toys. I mean...why do some people here go there in the first place? To look at awesome models....and to learn, right?

And Small Scale HQ is right to enjoy this hobby, without the rivet counters to poke the fun out of this hobby. It's enjoyable to think about the What Ifs,

its fun to not constantly have to worry about whether the model you're posting have some inaccuracy in them.

But see, if you're going across to the different group, don't try to force your view on them. Don't be surprised if the Missing Lynx crew demands proof of a tank-towed Soviet AA gun, aside some German pilots' stories. They are doing it NOT because they are close-minded, but because they want to the information going around their forum to be as historically accurate as possible.

I mean, how would you guys feel if some people in Missing Lynx come here and start to tell everyone what's wrong with our toys? And then ask how come we're so close-minded about making our toys as historically correct as possible?

That won't be very nice.

[aferguson]

the main reason for the exaggerated claims of tiger kills at kursk was the similarity in appearance of the panzer iv and the tiger.....at a distance. So crews were shooting at panzer iv's thinking they were tigers.

And there are always exaggerated kill claims in any battle. That's only natural.

But that comparison has nothing to do with stating you saw a russian tank towing an AA gun, which would be unusual (at first) and thus noteworthy. Pilots generally like to know what threats they are and will be facing so something like a new AA threat posed by a tank is going to be something you note and report.

And for the last time, i am only saying it is possible. Without proof that's all it can ever be is possible. But to deny it is possible is just as bad as me saying that it definitely happened because of these reports. Many things happened in WWII that we will never know about because records weren't kept, were destroyed or because nobody happened to snap a picture of it at the time...but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And sometimes, research can only be done by secondary means, like eye witness reports and you have to weigh it against known facts etc and draw your own conclusions.

It would be very nice and neat if everything that happened had proof but history and research aren't always so convenient. So in a case like this each person can draw their own conclusions and nobody can prove them wrong unless and until new information comes to light.

So if you chose to believe it didn't happen, groovy. I chose to believe it was possible. ok?

[GooglyDoogly]

the main reason for the exaggerated claims of tiger kills at kursk was the similarity in appearance of the panzer iv and the tiger.....at a distance. So crews were shooting at panzer iv's thinking they were tigers.

And there are always exaggerated kill claims in any battle. That's only natural.

But that comparison has nothing to do with stating you saw a russian tank towing an AA gun, which would be unusual (at first) and thus noteworthy. Pilots generally like to know what threats they are and will be facing so something like a new AA threat posed by a tank is going to be something you note and report.

And for the last time, i am only saying it is possible. Without proof that's all it can ever be is possible. But to deny it is possible is just as bad as me saying that it definitely happened because of these reports. Many things happened in WWII that we will never know about because records weren't kept, were destroyed or because nobody happened to snap a picture of it at the time...but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And sometimes, research can only be done by secondary means, like eye witness reports and you have to weigh it against known facts etc and draw your own conclusions.

It would be very nice and neat if everything that happened had proof but history and research aren't always so convenient. So in a case like this each person can draw their own conclusions and nobody can prove them wrong unless and until new information comes to light.

So if you chose to believe it didn't happen, groovy. I chose to believe it was possible. ok?

Well you said earlier you would like a discussion about it. It would be kinda hard to have a discussion about the truth of the subject, if all you can say is it's "possible".

Sure, everything's possible. It's possible that a JS-3 could have participated in the Battle of Berlin. It's also possible that all the missions in Call of Duty 5 actually happened.

You posted in Missing Lynx a video of a T-34 towing something. Maybe as proof that the towed AA gun myth is possible?

But a "possibility" is not proof. You're using the excuse of everything is possible since it can't be proven it never happened.

How can one prove that such a thing didn't exist...when it never existed in the first place?

Kinda like Bigfoot? Kinda like the Lochness monster?

Using that kind of logic isn't really conducive to a sound debate.



Maybe the next time, that subject comes up in ML again, there would be more valid proof. Heck, I still remember the great "Which Tiger did Wittmann Use in Vellers Bocage" debate.

Now THAT'S a great discussions. Several factions supported several different Tigers, and offered detailed British and German reports, aerial photos of Villers Bocage after the battle, never before seen photos af the knocked out Tigers in the town, even photos of modern-day Villers Bocage, which helped in the placement of the Tigers, etc etc.

But yeah, it's cool if you think it's possible that the Soviet tanks towed AA guns so when under air attack, they could stop their tank, dismount, set up the AA gun, fire from a static position while they are being bombed and gunned down by cannon fire from above.

I myself think as a Soviet tanker, survival is priority numero uno. Which means either keep moving so you'll be a harder target to hit, or abandon the tank, and hide. Seems more prudent that way, especially when the war is nearing its end.

[aferguson]

"But yeah, it's cool if you think it's possible that the Soviet tanks towed AA guns so when under air attack, they could stop their tank, dismount, set up the AA gun, fire from a static position while they are being bombed and gunned down by cannon fire from above. "

Stukas with the twin 37mm cannon were deadly against all russian tanks. Trundling along at 20 mph or so is hardly going to be a good defensive tactic. And with all the open terrain in the east, bailing out and hiding is not a very useful tactic either (not to mention probably against orders). Firing at your enemy with AA guns would be the best of the 3 alternatives, especially if you had weight in numbers of AA guns. If AA guns are so useless against aircraft, why would they have been invented at all? But clearly they are useful against aircraft, especially low flying aircraft, so why not use them if you can bring them along?

I think it possible that it was tried for a time, either in one sector of the front or during one campaign. It may well have been abandoned as it could have been found too impractical, for some of the reasons pointed out on the missing-lynx discussion. Lots of ideas have been tried and abaondoned in war. I don't see why this couldn't have been one of them.

And i think it's fun to speculate and discuss things that could have happened. If hard and concrete proof is all that interests you, so be it. But as i said in my post above, many things in history are unprovable,** (see example below) so all you have is secondary evidence, like several pilot's eye witness accounts, to go on.

I don't really think this has been a 'debate'....nowhere near that formal. Debates have rules. I brought this up as a discussion to see if anyone else had any evidence that this really happened. One person did. Who knows, maybe next time it's brought up someone will produce a photo.

But i don't see any harm in discussing what might have happened in WWII or any other time. I'm not writing this in a book, passing it off as fact. So i don't get why you and some of the guys on missing-lynx were making such a big deal out of it?

** an example of something from history that can never be proven: As Admiral Nelson lay dying at the battle of trafalgar his last words were either 'kismet Hardy' or 'kiss me Hardy'. It was recorded as 'kiss me hardy' (by a dreaded eye witness) but makes no sense, and many feel with the noise of the cannons etc what was actually said was 'kismet Hardy'....kismet meaning 'fate'. And Nelson was known to be very fatalistic in nature. Yet Hardy kissed Nelon...twice. So, he is a second eye witness who clearly thought Nelson said 'kiss me'. But he may have misunderstood or misheard Nelson too in the noise of battle. Point: since it can never be proven which he said, does that mean it should never be discussed? Because that seems to be what you are saying in all your posts and what was said in the ML thread. Just sweep it away and never talk about it again because there is no proof what was said.

It's nice to have proof, but life and history aren't always that convenient.

[GooglyDoogly]

"But yeah, it's cool if you think it's possible that the Soviet tanks towed AA guns so when under air attack, they could stop their tank, dismount, set up the AA gun, fire from a static position while they are being bombed and gunned down by cannon fire from above. "

Stukas with the twin 37mm cannon were deadly against all russian tanks. Trundling along at 20 mph or so is hardly going to be a good defensive tactic. And with all the open terrain in the east, bailing out and hiding is not a very useful tactic either (not to mention probably against orders). Firing at your enemy with AA guns would be the best of the 3 alternatives, especially if you had weight in numbers of AA guns. If AA guns are so useless against aircraft, why would they have been invented at all? But clearly they are useful against aircraft, especially low flying aircraft, so why not use them if you can bring them along?

I think it possible that it was tried for a time, either in one sector of the front or during one campaign. It may well have been abandoned as it could have been found too impractical, for some of the reasons pointed out on the missing-lynx discussion. Lots of ideas have been tried and abaondoned in war. I don't see why this couldn't have been one of them.

Yep, abandoning your tank is a big no-no in the Soviet Army, which is punishable by a stint in a penal battalion.

But a lot, if not most Soviet tankers has done it, because their main objective was to survive. It's the Japanese who's into suicide, not the Russkies.

And i think it's fun to speculate and discuss things that could have happened. If hard and concrete proof is all that interests you, so be it. But as i said in my post above, many things in history are unprovable,** (see example below) so all you have is secondary evidence, like several pilot's eye witness accounts, to go on.

I don't really think this has been a 'debate'....nowhere near that formal. Debates have rules. I brought this up as a discussion to see if anyone else had any evidence that this really happened. One person did. Who knows, maybe next time it's brought up someone will produce a photo.

But i don't see any harm in discussing what might have happened in WWII or any other time. I'm not writing this in a book, passing it off as fact. So i don't get why you and some of the guys on missing-lynx were making such a big deal out of it?

Yes, speculating is fun. But that's just what it is...speculation. You're basically speculating when you're trying to find proof that this subject was true. See the folly in that? Most people would offer better proof to prove their point, but speculation on top of other speculation? How will that contribute anything to a debate or discussion?

And it IS a debate. It's just a debate that didn't go your way. And it was pretty formal too. No one has called people names in that thread, which is sadly, I can't say for this thread.

You offered a video as a possible proof, people countered how a tank-towed AA gun cannot be feasible.

For a subject that has little or no proof, that's really the best you can get.

And while speculation and what ifs questions are fun, Missing-Lynx has stayed away from that for years. Because they strive to build the most accurate models as much as possible. And you don't make historically accurate models with speculative information.

That's why they don't have models of Paper Panzers there either.

No one is making a big deal out of it. You stated your opinion that its possible, and they stated your opinion that its not. But while they come up with sound reasoning how it may not be possible, (and the lack of proof), all you kept going back to is, "Oh come on! it may be possible!!"

But it seems a big deal enough for you to post about it here. I seriously doubt those other guys are posting about it in other modeling forums, complaining to their friends about you.

** an example of something from history that can never be proven: As Admiral Nelson lay dying at the battle of trafalgar his last words were either 'kismet Hardy' or 'kiss me Hardy'. It was recorded as 'kiss me hardy' (by a dreaded eye witness) but makes no sense, and many feel with the noise of the cannons etc what was actually said was 'kismet Hardy'....kismet meaning 'fate'. And Nelson was known to be very fatalistic in nature. Yet Hardy kissed Nelon...twice. So, he is a second eye witness who clearly thought Nelson said 'kiss me'. But he may have misunderstood or misheard Nelson too in the noise of battle. Point: since it can never be proven which he said, does that mean it should never be discussed? Because that seems to be what you are saying in all your posts and what was said in the ML thread. Just sweep it away and never talk about it again because there is no proof what was said.

And exactly how are you going to model that? O.o;

And no, not sweep away, but unless there are more proof, then it's just all speculation. Or cannot you understand that's not what ML was about? That's what I meant about the different mentalities. Neither side is wrong, but your thread was simply out of place there.

It should be discussed, when there are more things about it to discuss. I mean heck, even with Big Foot, at least they have more than just eyewitness account to rely on.

It's nice to have proof, but life and history aren't always that convenient.

True, but since you're the one who was hoping for others to come up with more proof...

[aferguson]

I'll specualte when and where i want, thanks anyway. I posted it here as well as on missing lynx in case someone here had some info that someone there didn't and because of the possible tie in with 21c's quad 50 trailer.

And one eye witness account is very thin evidence, i agree. Many eye witness accounts all saying the same thing, carry some weight for sure and certainly add plausability and shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily with a 'i don't believe them'.

If several different eye witnesses in a court battle all said they saw the guy sitting at the defense table shoot the victim. The guy sitting at the defense table would go to prison, unless the defense can come up with a better argument than 'i don't see how that's possible' which is what you and the 3 guys on missing lynx are using as your arguments. Just because they don't think it could be done, doesn't mean it wasn't tried. And it may have been tried but failed, which is why we don't hear anything about it.

The Luftwaffe pilots who reported seeing these guns behind Russian tanks would be crazy to lie. The tanks towing the guns would show up on their gun camera footage. So, they would quickly be seen as liars, or mistaken. But that was not mentioned in the Hs 129 book.....just that there were several pilot reports of russian tanks towing AA guns. It woud be great if some of that gun camera footage could be found because it would settle this one way or the other. Until then, like it or not, it is still possible that it happened, even without hard proof. I know it's a lot tidier to be able to talk in absolute terms: 'yes it happened' or 'no it didn't happen' but it doesn't always work that way. Life is often shades of grey, not black and white. So the term 'maybe it happened' is valid and has its place.

And the guys on missing lynx were making a big deal out of it. The tone and temperment of their posts were very confrontational, even though no insults or harsh language was used; they were both dismissive and belittling. An air of supperiority. Their attitude was like i was a stupid dope who knows nothing, yet all they just kept saying was 'there's no way it could be done, the pilot is wrong, eye witnesses can't be trusted, i just don't see how it is possible....yadda yadda yadda'. Just as repetative and recursive as my 'i still think it was possible because of all the eye witness accounts'. Not even for a moment did any of them acknowledge that maybe there could be something to it.

Very closed minded. And being closed minded does not help the truth come to light.

[GooglyDoogly]

I'll specualte when and where i want, thanks anyway.

Good for you. The least you can do is to respect the wishes of the mods and the majority of the members of ML, and not do that there.

Like you know, how we here respect the wishes of the mods and the majority of members?

I posted it here as well as on missing lynx in case someone here had some info that someone there didn't and because of the possible tie in with 21c's quad 50 trailer.

Yeah I know. The original intention of this thread is quite good, actually. But when the gang mentality surfaced, ie: We support you Aferg! Those people are they're all closeminded! blah blah blah.

That's when the thread became useless. Because even if I didn't reply in this thread...did anyone offer any other info? The rest basically just patted your back and agreed, "well, it could have happened!"

And one eye witness account is very thin evidence, i agree. Many eye witness accounts all saying the same thing, carry some weight for sure and certainly add plausability and shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily with a 'i don't believe them'.

For the most part, even if there are no photographic evidence, I think most people in ML would be more accepting of this "myth" if:

A: If it actually make sense for the Soviets to employ this tactic. Because yeah. They're not desperate by this time. And for the most part, they have an air dominance on the battlefield.

B: If something, ANYTHING on the Soviet side that said this tactic was employed. But ugh, there's not even a remote case of a hearsay when it comes to this.

The Luftwaffe pilots who reported seeing these guns behind Russian tanks would be crazy to lie. The tanks towing the guns would show up on their gun camera footage. So, they would quickly be seen as liars, or mistaken. But that was not mentioned in the Hs 129 book.....just that there were several pilot reports of russian tanks towing AA guns. It woud be great if some of that gun camera footage could be found because it would settle this one way or the other. Until then, like it or not, it is still possible that it happened, even without hard proof. I know it's a lot tidier to be able to talk in absolute terms: 'yes it happened' or 'no it didn't happen' but it doesn't always work that way. Life is often shades of grey, not black and white. So the term 'maybe it happened' is valid and has its place.

To be honest, i don't think the German pilots really lied. Maybe they just reported what they thought they saw. I mean, heck, in OIF, we heard combat reports that said that our tankers were being engaged with new, Russian AT missiles like the Kornet.

And guess what? it was false. There was no sophisticated weapons used against the coalition forces during the initial phase.

And the guys on missing lynx were making a big deal out of it. The tone and temperment of their posts were very confrontational, even though no insults or harsh language was used; they were both dismissive and belittling. An air of supperiority.

Very closed minded. And being closed minded does not help the truth come to light.

If you could copy and paste what exactly they said that made you feel this way, that would be great. Because really, I went to that thread, because I was baffled that they would be that...mean? I've gone there lots of times and people were nothing but helpful and courteous.

But I didn't see anything that would cause you to feel that way.

[aferguson]

at no time did anyone tell me that speculation is not welcomed on ML....neither member nor mod. And such a thing never even occurred to me, to be honest. In fact you were the first one i've heard it from. I will avoid doing any further speculating on ML from now on.

Yes i've found the members of ML to be, for the most part, very helpful. It was just the 3 in that discussion, i guess, that in this particular case came on a bit strong with their disagreement. Their underlying attitude was that i was a dummy who didn't know what he was talking about. But what really ticked me off was that they were being so closed minded and absolute in saying 'no it wasn't done'. It was like this: because they couldn't see it being done or see any way of doing it, then therefore it wasn't done....as if they are the smartest in the world and if they can't figure it out then it didn't happen. That attitude bugs me.

At any rate, neither you and i, nor those 3 ML members and i are ever going to see eye to eye on this. So unless more evidence is brought to light there's not a lot of point in further discussion. Maybe one day some gun camera footage or something will be found and shed new light on things. Until then it remains in my mind an unproven possibility.

But this is starting to go in circles, like the ML thread, because all of my rebutes to what you just said are going to be restating what i've already said several times. So i think it's best we shake virtual hands and agree to disagree.