Talk:DD tank

message: The article text currently states that "the tank crews (of the DD tanks that foundered while approaching Omaha beach) were drowned at sea". However, the BBC documentary Journeys to the Bottom of the Sea - D-Day: The Untold Story  screened by BBC2 in the UK on 30 May 2002 reported an investigation of the casualty records of 741st Tank Battalion which shows that, on the contrary, nearly all of the crewmen escaped and were rescued.  My recollection is that the total casualty figures for killed and missing for the battalion (or possibly B and C companies only) on 6 June 1944 were quoted as being about 8 killed and 5 missing; whereas the 27 tanks which sank would have had 135 men embarked. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the broadcast, and have been unable to find the corresponding figures on the Internet. Can anyone come of with a transcript of the broadcast, or some other citeable source? In the meantime, I have put a "cite needed" tag on the claim in the text.
Incidently, some sources say 26 tanks sank, with 1 disabled defore launch: compare  and ). It is possible that the sole tank reported in the former source as lauched from LTC-600 was actually disabled.
Regards, John Moore 309 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I've found a source and added it to the article. Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crew casualties in sunk DD tanks - Help needed!

message: Is it certain the surviving Tank on the Torcross memorial is a Sherman DD? From at the picture on the Exercise Tiger article, it seems to me to be a regular Sherman. If you look at the picture of the DD, you'll see the tank has toothed wheels at the front and back of the tracks. The front one is connected to the engine and drives the tracks, the rear one takes power from the tracks and turns the propellors. Regular Shermans, of course, didn't have this. They just had a non-toothed wheel at the back. That's what the tank in the Torcross memorial looks like. Catsmeat 16:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot! In addition, one of the article's sources states that the Torcross tank was lost in 1943. I have amended the article accordingly. Regards, John Moore 309 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the tank in the photo is definitely an ex-DD tank. The idler is the DD type; the little 'nub' of a fitting on the turret side is part of the DD apparatus and does not appear on normal M4A1s. Finally, it is a large-hatch hull with a 75mm gun turret. That's not dispositive, but no documented example exists of such a hull on a 75mm-armed, non-DD tank. DMorpheus (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Torcross Tank

message: why didn't the U.S. use DD's in the Pacific against Japan? They would have been able to lend the infantry on the ground support faster. It would solve the problem of landing craft with infantry sinking stoping tanks from getting to the beach.thats what I'm woundering.
There were plans to send DD's to the Pacific, but the war ended before they got there. They would have been useful in the many amphibious landings and I think it's a no-brainer that they would have been used in Operation Downfall. However, my understanding the reason they weren't sent earlier is that there was a lack of communication between the European and Pacific theaters - the technology developed for one theatre tended not to be picked up by the other. Besides, I suspect Allied commanders in Europe would strongly resist losing some of their best tankers - the crews of all the Hobart Funnies were highly trained specialists and consodered themselves to be an elite.Catsmeat (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shermans in the pacific? 

message: The data on the Poole wrecks is not complete.
http://www.divernet.com/UK_Diving/1118381/pooles_valentine_tanks_the_last_stand.html
The article above covers the 11 tanks and the excercise that caused them to be there.
Reference can be made to  DIVER November 2011
Hope this helps
Regards Mark
Mrutty (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poole Harbour Valentine tank wrecks 

message: ".... had a propeller powered by the tank's engine...." This is a quote from the article, which implies a single propeller; but the third photograph of a Sherman with its flotation screen raised, clearly shows two propellers.
Also, I'm sure I have read somewhere that a DD tank was 'steered by its tracks'.
Having been part of the British army just after Armoured Personnel Carriers ceased to 'swim' and tanks had long been too big and heavy, I would hesitate at changing the article without some form of consensus.
RASAM (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propellers and steering 

message: Currently our photo of the preserved Valentine DD is one taken from behind. We have a couple taken from the front:
File:Valentine Mk.IX DD ‘T82527’ “COMPTON VERNEY” (49909422298).jpg|faces into the article
File:Valentine DD.JPG|higher res
©Geni (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The other pictures of that preserved tank all suffer from the screen being a khaki-ish colour photographed against earthy backgrounds. These two are more greens against green backgrounds and earth background but seem to have more contrast and inclusion of humans for scale is helpful. I'd say the one on the left is better because of less background clutter of spectators etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well the tank appears to do a lot of shows. We'll get it against a hot pink background some day.©Geni (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: preserved Valentine image