German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[Del Arroyo]

I was under the impression that AT artillery was phased out because we had guided AT missles and stuff like that...

DA

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was under the impression that AT artillery was phased out because we had guided AT missles and stuff like that...

DA

True, but AT guns were less and less prominent in arsenals beginning in the 1950's. AT Missiles didn't achieve prominence until the Yom Kippur war of '73, though they had been deployed before that.

A lot of the early assault guns/tank destroyers (Marder, JPZ-I) were, essentially, AT guns on a chassis with armor. The mobility/protection combo was more and more preferenced as the war progressed.

Seamus

[PanzerJaeger]

a .303 round could take out tank tracks

What kind of tank is being discussed in this statement?

[Papewaio]

"The mobility of tanks depends upon the proper functioning of the suspension parts — sprocket (small driving wheel), idler (small wheel in the rear), wheels and tracks. All of these parts are vulnerable to shells of all calibers. A particularly vulnerable part is the sprocket.

Soviet Artillery Journal

I remember veterans of D-Day saying that they fired .303 at tank tranks to get inbetween the tread and wedge inside the tracks leaving the tank immobile (well one tread was so they could still do doughnuts )... it wasn't the preferred method, but more one of desparation.

[English assassin]

Its not exactly evidence but...

As I may have mentioned I am the proud owner of a Ferret armoured car, 1959 manufacture. Now, an armoured car is not a tank. But even if you assumed the armoured body was completely impervious to shrapnel, there is a lot of suspension that sits outside the body on the ferret. I believe that is true for tanks as well. The suspension is pretty tough and overengineered, sure, but I'm sure its not bulletproof. And I have inspected it pretty close up (what idiot put this bloody oil filler here....)

Also the episcopes leave a lot to be desired when you are sealed up. They are covered by bulletproof glass, of course, but its not scratchproof and wouldn't take all that much to make it opaque.

Finally, airbursts. Engine decks don't look that robust to me, and they are not heavily armoured. Might an airbursting shell put out enough power to get shrapnel through the engine deck? I'd guess yes.

[Kagemusha]

Finnish forces used field artillery as AT with some succes in winterwar,and that was not direct but indirect fire.Here is a llink.At the bottom of the page is a paragraph of Soviet tank losses at Karelian Isthmus,there is stated that Finnish artillery destroyed total of 955 tanks.At the time the main caliber of Finnish artillery was 76mm .If you scroll down the page there is another less sophisticated method to immobilize tanks.Here is a picture of this mighty weapon.

[Redleg]

Some have covered it - the use of artillery against tanks.

Some basic information about artillery against tanks.

What many are forgetting is where is the fuel tanks for most armored vechicles? What are the most vulnerable areas of the Tank to artillery fire? What munitions have the most effect on these weakness? Is a mobility kill prior to the battle more important then the physical destruction of the Tank.

For instance - The primary weakness of the T-34 through T-72 was the location of the fuel tanks. An Artillery Plan of attack on these tanks prior to DPICM munitions included a heavy artillery barrage of HE/PD and HE/VT or HE/TI, followed by WP to burn any fuel that should have been caused to leak by the HE. (This actually works more then you might think)

Now for the munitions used during WW2 the mix of shells against armor would of been primarily the HE/PD (High Explosive/point denonating) and HE/TI (HE/Time fuze). What this does is strip any radio anteneas, can cause moblity kills by causing the track to come off of the tank, destroy road wheels which keep the track, damage engines, kill crew, and cause the tanks to shut hatches - which in turn slows them down.

The lucky stray shot for the artillery could destroy the tank if the round was heavy enough to penerate through the top armor and had the angle of fall necessary to insure that peneration. Being that most tanks during that time had less armor protection on the top.

Engine compartments were the most vulernable since they were also normally acessed through the top of tank.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kag:

A source! Thank you. Pulling from it though:

While the main task of the barrages was to pin down or disperse any infantry attacks, that were following the tanks, some lucky hits on individual tanks was scored.... Even a 76 mm artillery shell was powerful enough to destroy a light tank, or severe the tracks from even a bigger vehicle. A hit by a heavier shell almost always disabled a light T-26 or BT tank

I have never argued that tanks were impervious against a direct hit by indirectly fired artillery. Some of the lightly skinned early war tanks would, indeed have been killed by a lucky direct hit from an HE round. Moreover, tracks are vulnerable enough during a direct hit on all tanks throughout the war that artillery fire could not be ignored by armor -- paricularly if they were firing at a concentration point or tank laager. Earlier posts, however, argue that misses at distances of up to 30 meters had a realistic chance of disabling the tank. I expect that such instances were actually pretty rare.

Yes, the engine deck of a WW2 era tank is comparatively lightly armored, and bullet resistant periscopes are not immune to scratches etc. But it takes very little to stop shrapnel -- which is precisely the point of an infantryman's helmet. Shrapnel, fired correctly, tends to burst in the air above a target. Softer targets can be badly treated by such attention. Things of metal, such as barbed wire, tank engine grills, and APC's tend to survive. Tank tracks were usually covered from above to protect them further from such risks.

A far greater risk to the AFV was the concussive blast from an HE round. These could break things on a tank, but had to secure a direct hit or very near miss to do so. In this, the bigger the explosive charge of the round, the greater the threat.

Direct fire of all sorts at a tank tread was more risky for the tank. Anything mechanical can be broken or "monkey-wrenched," and as Pappy noted, tanks doing doughnuts are not quite as scary . This, however, was a direct fire scenario, not indirect artillery. Direct fire chances to disable a tank always went up with the caliber of weapon used in the role. Even fired directly, nobody counted on a cal 30 round getting a "golden BB" hit on a linkage point, but in desperation, you'll take the 1 in 10k chance over 0 chance every time.

Brave infantry could actually disable a tank more readily during close assault. If you are actually able to stick a bundle of grenades in the bogeys or have a couple of blokes shove a small log into the gearing and tread, you will immobilize it. There are certain risks in running right up to the tank, however, particularly if your artillery hadn't whacked or grounded the infantry support first.

The Finns in the Winterwar had better success against armor than any infantry army prior to them. To do so, they improvised well and did some things requiring a LOT of cojones. Actually, given the limited resources available, the entire Finnish defense against the Sovs was a textbook for using forces effectively. Hard to think of a better example of defense against the odds than that campaign.

Seamus

[Franconicus]

Soviet Artillery Journal

I remember veterans of D-Day saying that they fired .303 at tank tranks to get inbetween the tread and wedge inside the tracks leaving the tank immobile (well one tread was so they could still do doughnuts )... it wasn't the preferred method, but more one of desparation.

I remember the story of a Thunderbold pilot fighting over Normandy. He said that they attacked Tigers but could not penetrate the armor. Thunderbolds have 8 heavy maschine guns. Then they tried something else. When the tank was driving on the street they fired at the street in frint or behind him. The bullets were reflected and hit the soft undercarriage. That made the Tigers burn.

Well, I never believed that story

[econ21]

there is stated that Finnish artillery destroyed total of 955 tanks.

Of course this includes AT guns, which probably accounted for the lion's share of losses (the article, like Redleg, talks about indirect artillery causing the odd "lucky hit").

I agree with Seamus, WW2 AT guns could be deadly, especially with the element of surprise. The German 88mm gun is the clearest example. But their weakness is that once their position is revealed, they are very vulnerable to artillery or other means of attack. The Finns excelled at hit and run attacks, so did well with very limited AT resources. The article kagemusha links to has a nice vignette showing some Finns hastily abandoning their obsolete gun after it fired one shot. But just imagine what they could have done with hundreds of T-34s and KV-1s.

[Kraxis]

One of the first instance of Germans facing KV-1s and T-34s was a rather pathetic attack. It included 1 KV-1 and a couple of T-34s as escort, nothing else.

The German 37mm AT guns had of course no effect, neither did the tanks fare well. Luckily these tanks were crewed by inept soldiers, so they didn't hit much themselves. But pure brute strength forces them into the German rear, right into the terrain covered by a couple batteries of 105mm artillery guns (not infantry guns). The crews stayed put, a testament to their courage, and attempted to knock out the Russian tanks with direct fire. Though repeated hits were scored, no kills were reported (though I would not have liked to be in one of those tanks). In fact a comment went like this :"each time we hit the monsters they reared up, then fell back again to proceed forwards." Eventually they ran over the guns (indicating that their own guns or optics had been knocked out by the hits).
Direct hits by 105mm HE shells were not enough, then I doubt that a 150mm 30 meters away would have much better success against better tanks.

[econ21]

... Luckily these tanks were crewed by inept soldiers, so they didn't hit much themselves. ... The crews stayed put, a testament to their courage, and attempted to knock out the Russian tanks with direct fire. ...Eventually they ran over the guns (indicating that their own guns or optics had been knocked out by the hits).

Fascinating case, Kraxis, although I would have to say the determination of the Russian tank crews, however inept, was a testament to their courage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fascinating case, Kraxis, although I would have to say the determination of the Russian tank crews, however inept, was a testament to their courage.

Virtually every contemporary German account of Barbarossa as well as later combat on the Eastern front spoke highly of the bravery of the Russians in combat. They may have questioned their judgement, skill, training, or equipment, but never their cran.

Seamus

[Kagemusha]

Of course this includes AT guns, which probably accounted for the lion's share of losses (the article, like Redleg, talks about indirect artillery causing the odd "lucky hit").

I agree with Seamus, WW2 AT guns could be deadly, especially with the element of surprise. The German 88mm gun is the clearest example. But their weakness is that once their position is revealed, they are very vulnerable to artillery or other means of attack. The Finns excelled at hit and run attacks, so did well with very limited AT resources. The article kagemusha links to has a nice vignette showing some Finns hastily abandoning their obsolete gun after it fired one shot. But just imagine what they could have done with hundreds of T-34s and KV-1s.

Unfortunately Finland had only one armored division in the whole war 1939-1944.
80 T-26,8 T-28,7 T-34 and 2 KV-1s,all taken from the Soviets.The best armour in WWII Finish possessed was 59 STUG III assault guns,wich Germans didnt even consider as armour because those didnt have a turret.

[Redleg]

Direct hits by 105mm HE shells were not enough, then I doubt that a 150mm 30 meters away would have much better success against better tanks.

Image if you will - that a 155mm high explosive shell weighs 96.5 pounds on average. I could go into square weights of the shell which are simply a varition from standard of 1.1 pounds per square weight from the standard of 4 square. Then fired with the maximum charge of the howitzer - with during WW2 and up until around the 1980's was Charge 7 M4A2 powder. This created a muzzle volecity of over 454 meters per second. If you do the physics - the round serves as a huge kinetic energy weapon if you do not use a fuze on the projectile. Placing a fuze on the round does lessen this impact - however to kill a tank does not always require its destruction. A direct hit from an artillery round will often cause problems for the tank and more important the crew inside


Now back to WW2 when the tank armor was still in its developmental stages. WW1 being infant - WW2 armor is adoslent (SP). One of the soviet lessons learned was how to use artillery and anti-tank weapons together to kill tanks. Several battles show how effective such a systems is. The germans also did this (along with the Finnish as already pointed out)

From a translated WW2 German document

9. When antitank weapons are encountered at long or medium ranges, you must first return fire and then maneuver against them. First make a firing halt in order to bring effective fire to bear - then commit the bulk of the company to maneuver on the enemy with the continued support of one platoon.

10. When antitank weapons are encountered at close range, stopping is suicide. Only immediate attack at the highest speed with every weapon firing will have success and reduce losses.

11. In combat against the antitank guns you may never - even under the protection of strong fire support - allow a single platoon to attack alone. Antitank weapons are not employed singly. Remember - lone tanks in Russia are lost!

17. Always prepare dug in positions and camouflage against the possibility of air or artillery attack. Being sorry afterwards is no excuse for losses taken by these causes.

http://www.combatmission.com/article...ard/panzer.asp

Notice what this actually tells you about the combinaton of Artillery and Anti-Tank weapons used together.

To set an effective Armor Ambush is a very difficult thing to do - but is every Infantry commanders dream from WW2 on. Whole doctrines were invisioned from using exambles from WW2. Anti-Armor Guns - now missles - used with effective and planned Artillery support can cause great harm to any armor attack.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Artillery is not to be dismissed, as this material confirms. But nor is it the greatest theat to armor. The piece later notes:

20. Support from artillery fire or dive bombers must be used immediately, that is to say, while the fire is still hitting the objective. Afterward, when the fire has stopped it is too late. You must know that mostly such fires only produce a suppressing effect, not a destroying one. It is better to risk a friendly shell or bomb than to charge into an active antitank defense.

Killing blows by artillery v armor are the exception.

Seamus

[Kagemusha]

Artillery is not to be dismissed, as this material confirms. But nor is it the greatest theat to armor. The piece later notes:

Killing blows by artillery v armor are the exception.

Seamus

I agree.I think the most important anti tank weapons introduced in WWII were panzerfaust and Panzershreck and their Allied eqvalents(spelling).One hit to the side of the tank could destroy any tank of that day.

[econ21]

I agree.I think the most important anti tank weapons introduced in WWII were panzerfaust and Panzershreck and their Allied eqvalents(spelling).One hit to the side of the tank could destroy any tank of that day.

Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?

[Kraxis]

Image if you will - that a 155mm high explosive shell weighs 96.5 pounds on average. I could go into square weights of the shell which are simply a varition from standard of 1.1 pounds per square weight from the standard of 4 square. Then fired with the maximum charge of the howitzer - with during WW2 and up until around the 1980's was Charge 7 M4A2 powder. This created a muzzle volecity of over 454 meters per second. If you do the physics - the round serves as a huge kinetic energy weapon if you do not use a fuze on the projectile. Placing a fuze on the round does lessen this impact - however to kill a tank does not always require its destruction. A direct hit from an artillery round will often cause problems for the tank and more important the crew inside.

Note that I didn't say that direct hits by 150mm were inefficient, I said that 30 meters away they would not be such a massive threat due to their cuncussion or shrapnell, considering that direct hits by 105mm failed to do anything obvious.

I have seen the results of direct hits of 150mm HE on a captured Panther by the Russians (they really liked to test their weapons against enemy equipment). It is not pretty, with a massive part of the frontal glacis blown in. That would have been an obvious kill had it happened in a battle.

Today, 150mm HE wouldn't be as dangerous of course, but would still make a serious impact (pardon the pun).

But what was the soldiers' consideration on artillery? I have never read or heard of tankers saying "Man... There was only one thing that really scared me, and that was when they opened up with their artillery on us." But I have heard them say they feared the Panzerfaust/schrek or AT guns in general.

[Kraxis]

I agree.I think the most important anti tank weapons introduced in WWII were panzerfaust and Panzershreck and their Allied eqvalents(spelling).One hit to the side of the tank could destroy any tank of that day.

Yes, they were revolutionary weapons really. Portable AT weapons that were not as bulky or unwieldly as the AT-rifles, and had a much more powerful punch, and better cahnces of destroying the target in case of penetration (AT-rifles needed to be aimed at a spot where it could be expecte to hit crewmen of equipment behind).

But they were also good in other departments. They were effective weapons against bunkers and pillboxes, even occupied houses and trenches (in case of the Panzerfaust which dropped away at once).

But most important, they were extremely cheap! A Panzerfaust costed 6 Reichmarks, a Bazooka or Panzerschrek was more expensive but it was nothing compared to the AT-rifles or AT-guns.

[Kagemusha]

Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?

I think Iraqis RPGs were pretty outdated like their tanks too.But it is very hard to destroy a modern battle tank from in front side or back with RPGs.But APC is not a problem.In Finish army we used French Apilas 112mm heavy RPGs,it can penetrate 600mm of steel,so it can destroy most tanks when hitted in right place.The problem with modern battle tanks is that they have reactive armor(explosive charges that detonate when hitted by RPG and deflect the hit)or composite armor(layers of different materials that absorb the hit)or both.We were taught to shoot a modern battle tank at the tracks to stop it and then it can be detonated. or from multiple directions between the tower and the body of the tank.Ofcourse todays infantrys best weapon against battle tanks are antitank missiles.We were introduced the EuroSpike missile system that operates on fire and forget method.Once you lock the target and fire it.It flyes towards the tank and seconds after the hit it swings up and hit´s the tank on the top where its most vulnerable.I think that your original question remains open,because infantry with modern weapons really havent fought against modern battle tanks,and hopefully it wont happen anytime soon.

[itchrelief]

Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?

I would guess that a good number of those rounds did not detonate properly on contact. Many of the hits were either duds or did not fuse correctly for maximum armor penetration. Then you would have a few of them shot at the heavy frontal armor of the tanks, where you would most likely not penetrate unless you hit the driver's hatch, the turret ring, or the gun.

From what I've read, modern western tanks with compartmentalized ammunition storage and blowout panels for those compartments are much safer for the crew than earlier tanks, in that if a penetrating hit sets off the ammunition, most of the force of the explosion is vented outside of the tank and thus the crew is not barbequed. Combine this fact with the extremely small penetrator of the HEAT warhead on RPGs (the actual penetrating slug is only maybe an inch in diameter; if you check the armor of a penetrated tank after a HEAT warhead hit, you will see a black star shaped burn mark where the explosive went off, but the hole in the armor will only be a small pencil shaped hole in the middle of that star) and you have a fairly survivable scenario for the tank crewman. You could have a HEAT slug go all the way through the sides of an Abrams and if you are lucky, it will not hit anything vital. Then again, you could get unlucky and it could go right through your head, but that's your chances.

The actual side and rear armor of modern tanks is actually no better than and even worse in some cases than WW2 tanks, as the need to heavily armor the front from the more lethal antitank weapons leaves less mass to distribute elsewhere. It's just the fact that without setting off ammunition or some other sympathetic explosion within the tank, the small metal slug of an RPG's HEAT warhead isn't really that lethal unless it happens to actually pass right through you.

So no, modern tanks are not impervious IMO to infantry antitank weapons. They are only largely impervious from the front, but the actual destructiveness of the HEAT warheads is not that high even when you do penetrate (which is fairly easily accomplished from the side, rear, top) without setting off something else stored within the tank.

That's my take.

[Redleg]

But what was the soldiers' consideration on artillery? I have never read or heard of tankers saying "Man... There was only one thing that really scared me, and that was when they opened up with their artillery on us." But I have heard them say they feared the Panzerfaust/schrek or AT guns in general.

Thats because the tankers often can outrun the artillery fire. Its also one of the main battle drills practiced today - reaction to Artillery Fire. Button the hatch and move out.

[Kraxis]

Yeah I saw that footage of an M1A1/2 knocked out by the Iraqis. It was far from destroyed. It was merely burning a little down in the low chassis and had no smoke billowing from it.
It had been knocked out obviously, but I think it wouldn't take long before it was operational again.

To truly kill a modern MBT with an outdated RPG seems to be near impossible, or depend a whole lot on luck. Right now I think one would haev to settle on 'just' knocking it out.

I just find it interesting that since the insurgetns seems to have lots of RPGs that we don't hear of "American tank knocked out" in the media, since a general jounalist or corrospondent knows no difference between an MBT or IFV.
I know the Bradley is rather thinly skinned, so obviously it must have effective support elements (reactive armour).

[Redleg]

Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?

With most Tanks today (Abrams, Challengers, and from what I have read the upgrades on the T-80 and the new russian tank) most Infantry carried shoulder fired anti-tank rockets especially the RPG are no good being fired at the front and side armor of the vechicle. Its best used like the scenerio of firing the .303 into the sprocket to get a mobility kill. Or to get a rear shot at the vehicle to get an engine kill which prevents the tank from doing much of anything once the batteries go. But even that is a hard thing to accomplish when tanks move in at least pairs or with an IFV along with them.

Several Infantry Anti-Tank missles however are of danger to even the MBT of today.

[Kagemusha]

Yeah I saw that footage of an M1A1/2 knocked out by the Iraqis. It was far from destroyed. It was merely burning a little down in the low chassis and had no smoke billowing from it.
It had been knocked out obviously, but I think it wouldn't take long before it was operational again.

To truly kill a modern MBT with an outdated RPG seems to be near impossible, or depend a whole lot on luck. Right now I think one would haev to settle on 'just' knocking it out.

I just find it interesting that since the insurgetns seems to have lots of RPGs that we don't hear of "American tank knocked out" in the media, since a general jounalist or corrospondent knows no difference between an MBT or IFV.
I know the Bradley is rather thinly skinned, so obviously it must have effective support elements (reactive armour).

I thought Bradleys havent been used in the cities that much at all because of its vulnerability.When i looked TV material of attack on Fallujah i saw good old Abrams supporting infantry all the time.It is intresting because i thought the M1A2 didnt even have HE rounds but only APCR and HEAT.But i saw with my own eyes from the TV screen Abrams shooting at a house,with its main gun.

[Kagemusha]

With most Tanks today (Abrams, Challengers, and from what I have read the upgrades on the T-80 and the new russian tank) most Infantry carried shoulder fired anti-tank rockets especially the RPG are no good being fired at the front and side armor of the vechicle. Its best used like the scenerio of firing the .303 into the sprocket to get a mobility kill. Or to get a rear shot at the vehicle to get an engine kill which prevents the tank from doing much of anything once the batteries go. But even that is a hard thing to accomplish when tanks move in at least pairs or with an IFV along with them.

Several Infantry Anti-Tank missles however are of danger to even the MBT of today.

It helps if you are in a forest where heavy MBT can move only on the roads.
Just make myself clear when i talk about the RPG i talk about rocket propelled grenades in general,not the Russian RPG series.

[Kraxis]

I thought Bradleys havent been used in the cities that much at all because of its vulnerability.When i looked TV material of attack on Fallujah i saw good old Abrams supporting infantry all the time.It is intresting because i thought the M1A2 didnt even have HE rounds but only APCR and HEAT.But i saw with my own eyes from the TV screen Abrams shooting at a house,with its main gun.

I haev heard that it does have 'special' rounds of HESH (High Explosive *something* *something*) and HEP (High Explosive Plastic), but they are in general not used as the tank is supposed to fight other tanks, or use its MGs on softer targets. Perhaps there has been shipped a good number of those round to Iraq? But they are not part of the usual loadout of 20 Sabot and 20 HEAT.

Anyway, when I was winding down over at .com, a very nice guy went to Iraq (army logistics officer). He told that they had a bad practice of running through the local town with their Humvees and Bradleys to get some insurgets to shoot at them. He found the whole idea just a bit flawed.

[Kagemusha]

I haev heard that it does have 'special' rounds of HESH (High Explosive *something* *something*) and HEP (High Explosive Plastic), but they are in general not used as the tank is supposed to fight other tanks, or use its MGs on softer targets. Perhaps there has been shipped a good number of those round to Iraq? But they are not part of the usual loadout of 20 Sabot and 20 HEAT.

Thanks for the info Kraxis.I didnt now about those ammo at all.
BTW is there any chance that Mannsteins panzers could continue their roaming in Russia anytime soon?

[Kraxis]

Thanks for the info Kraxis.I didnt now about those ammo at all.
BTW is there any chance that Mannsteins panzers could continue their roaming in Russia anytime soon?

Hey, don't take my word on it. I have only heard about it, I haven't really searched for it, and I can't even remember where I heard it, so we have no reference for reliability.
So it would be very nice if someone who knows stepped in. Anyone in the armoured corps of the US army or German army (same gun, same ammo)?

Manstein won't roll for a few days yet. BI takes my time right now.