Visit to Normandy photos

[patrickl]

Note

[patrickl]

Sherman

[patrickl]

Rommel

[patrickl]

German disposition 6 June 1944.

[patrickl]

Map

[patrickl]

Map

[patrickl]

Map

[patrickl]

Map

[patrickl]

Southern France

[patrickl]

Map

[BBfanboy]

Interesting comparative photos of the Churchill tank tracks vs. the Sherman. The Churchill's were like claws and had to dig in to get traction. The Sherman's had rubber pads between the cleats that allowed it to grip hard smooth surfaces like paved roads. Thus the Sherman could travel much faster on roads than the Churchill.
The width of the tread was also important - more width = lower PSI = less chance of getting mired in soft ground. The Churchill looks like it could dig itself in quite nicely (although I have no idea what its actual performance was as an all terrain vehicle).

[geofflambert]

No expert on flammpanzers, but I always thought it made more sense to squirt the volatile and then ignite it as opposed to the US method (I believe) of igniting it as it came out. The Churchill had the capacity to squirt before igniting.

[m10bob]

After the battle of St Lo, dad-s division (the 29th) was enroute to take the port of Brest.
The Brits lent the Americans 5 Churchill Crocks and dad saw them on the main road moving in single file.
The Germans had placed mines in the roadway with large naval shells under them.
One of the Brit tanks hit one of the mines and after the explosion, dad said there were no pieces remaining larger than a dinner plate.
He was roughly a hundred yards away.

Here is a page from the division "booklets" which were issued monthly.
Top right picture shows one of the Brit Churchills.

[sandman455]

Thank you for sharing all these great pictures!

[pontiouspilot]

That genius track design is one of the reasons our boys did so well at Dieppe. I still say Mountbatten was worth 3 good divisions to the axis!!

[patrickl]

Photo

[patrickl]

Photo

[patrickl]

Photo

[patrickl]

Photo

[patrickl]

Photo