where does the ronson nickname come from?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
Hans1906
Member
Posts: 2444
Joined: 06 Jan 2020 23:13
Location: Deutschland

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Hans1906 » 08 Aug 2020 15:31

Yes.did you look at destroyed "Sherman" tanks at all, on the above photo link...

Hans1906
Es ist im Leben wichtig, viel zu wissen.
Manchmal ist es noch wichtiger, zu wissen, daß man nichts weiß.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 15:49

Hans1906 wrote:
08 Aug 2020 15:31
.did you look at destroyed "Sherman" tanks at all, on the above photo link...

I don't need Google to look at knocked out tanks. I have my own (vastly superior) collection of pics of knocked out tanks. Like this air view of 6 knocked out tanks just above Norrey-en-Bessin in June 1944.
IGNF_PVA_1-6bb.jpg
gl Portrait376.-tile.jpg
So if anyone wants to turn this into a 'how many photos knocked out tanks do you have on your hard drive' competition I am game.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Hans1906
Member
Posts: 2444
Joined: 06 Jan 2020 23:13
Location: Deutschland

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Hans1906 » 08 Aug 2020 16:15

Okay, you are one of the very many experts...

Hans1906

Whatever collections might be, is worth a shit, speaking about my DJ, HJ, RAD, and RADwJ collections, and I am very long into
all this...
Copied stuff from the internet, like always.
Do not tell me, you bought the photos somewere...
Es ist im Leben wichtig, viel zu wissen.
Manchmal ist es noch wichtiger, zu wissen, daß man nichts weiß.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4252
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Richard Anderson » 08 Aug 2020 16:39

Hans1906 wrote:
08 Aug 2020 15:31
Yes.did you look at destroyed "Sherman" tanks at all, on the above photo link...

Hans1906
Did you look at destroyed "Tiger" tanks at all, on the above photo link...

RichTO90
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

paulrward
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by paulrward » 08 Aug 2020 16:41

Hello All :

To Mr. Michael Kenny:

Yes, I can analyze data. And the first thing I do when I analyze data is examine the SOURCE of the data. You
have stated:
And of course let us not forget 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated.


without supporting documentation. All right, here is some data WITH supporting documentation:
A 2 July dispatch sent by Eisenhower from Bradley’s First Army Headquarters
stated that “actual tests against captured enemy tanks show that 76 millimeter will
not penetrate Tiger in front or flanks and will not penetrate Panther except on flanks
.”
Subsequent evaluation of the damage inflicted on several of the eleven captured
Panthers by M10s of the 899th Tank Destroyer Battalion revealed that none of the
3-inch rounds had succeeded in penetrating the front glacis of any of the tanks.

This comes directly from the SHAEF Tank Folder, page 922. ( It was a priority message from
Eisenhower at First Army HQ to Lieutenant General W. Bedell Smith at SHAEF.)

On pages 895-899. can be found the results of tests conducted on 13 July (page 899) against
the front plate of a Panther using the Sherman’s 75mm gun firing “M3-HEAT (Special)” armor
piercing rounds, no penetrations were achieved from a range of just 250 yards.



Mr. Kenny, you stated that 75% of hits on a Panther would penetrate. The U.S. Army tests would seem to
disagree. My question to you is, exactly what gun was used in the tests you cite that gave a 75% penetration
rate on the Panther ? If it was the 17 pounder mounted in a Sherman Firefly, then, yes, you may be correct,
But the 17 pounder was NOT available to the U.S. Army, and, for some reason, the British were loath to share
them with their ally during the war.

But, my tests cite exactly the gun used, the 75mm M3, the ammunition used, and the range at which the
test was conducted. This is much more reliable data that just a statement that " 75% of rounds penetrated
the Panther...." Further, the reports cites the fact the the 3" M7 gun on the M10 Tank Destroyer was equally
incapable of penetrating the front glacis of a Panther. This was one of the major factors in over-riding
the Tank Destroyer Command's reluctance to fit the 90mm gun to the M10, which led to the M36 being
fielded in Europe was quickly as they could be shipped over from the U.S.


Now, if your citation is referring to the U.S. 76mm gun, that may indeed be possible. The 76 mm gun could
penetrate 133mm of U.S. armor at 1000 yards using HVAP ammunition. HOWEVER, and this is a major point,
less than 25% of the tanks landed in the Normandy Invasion phase were armed with the 76mm gun, ( the rest
had the 75mm M3 which we have already seen will NOT penetrate the Panther, even at 250 yards ) and the
HVAP ammunition was NOT available in Normandy in significant amounts.

In sad fact is, the 76mm armed Shermans were in a minority until the end of 1944, which meant that the
majority of U.S. Sherman crews were fighting Panthers and Tigers in tanks that could NOT penetrate the
frontal armor of their adversary, while the 88mm and 75mmL70 guns had no trouble whatsoever knocking out
Shermans with frontal hits. This gave the German crews a distinct advantage, in that they could penetrate
a Sherman at long range and any aspect, while the U.S. crews had to maneuver closer and go for side and
rear shots.

It is simple math, Mr. Kenny: The big gun will beat the little gun every time. Which is why I wear a
.45 Long Colt as my carry gun.

The regrettable fact is, the M4 Sherman COULD have been fitted with the turret from the T26, and, had the
U.S. Army gone on a crash program in early 1945, they could have produced enough turrets and track widening
kits to outfit several hundred Shermans by the end of July, which would have greatly reduced the carnage among
American Tank crews. The fact that they didn't was due to beaurocratic infighting between few U.S. Generals
in both the States and in Europe, and a lack of awareness of how serious a problem they were going to face when
they went up against the Germans in France and Germany. ( It appears to me that the whole organization of
Tank Design and Procurement in the U.S. had, by 1943-44, contracted a severe case of the ' Mañanas '. )


To Mr Sheldrake :

Stories about the U.S. Army are replete with anecdotes of young recruits who, unhappy with their situation
in Boot Camp, threaten to ' Write their Congressman ! ' When they attempt to do so, they are generally
escorted behind the barracks by a couple of Sergeants, and the error of their ways is explained to them.

Forcefully.


Just another one of the little differences between the U.S. Army and the British Army....




Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Last edited by paulrward on 08 Aug 2020 16:45, edited 1 time in total.
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

User avatar
Hans1906
Member
Posts: 2444
Joined: 06 Jan 2020 23:13
Location: Deutschland

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Hans1906 » 08 Aug 2020 16:42

Would you like me to "quote" all the above photos, for sure not.

Hans1906
Es ist im Leben wichtig, viel zu wissen.
Manchmal ist es noch wichtiger, zu wissen, daß man nichts weiß.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 17:12

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:41
A 2 July dispatch sent by Eisenhower from Bradley’s First Army Headquarters
stated that “actual tests against captured enemy tanks show that 76 millimeter will
not penetrate Tiger in front or flanks and will not penetrate Panther except on flanks
.”

I wonder what tests they are talking about because I do not know of any firing tests on a Tiger in Normandy. Only sSS PzAbt 101 were in action up to July 16th so any test must have been on one of their Tigers. I know that the US had to 'borrow' a Panther from the British but no mention of any Tigers being shipped over. 'Tests' in this instance must mean theoretical calculations.

Oh and as luck would have it during EPSOM (June 27th ) one Tiger was knocked out after several Sherman 75mm engaged it frontaly and a penetration started a fire in the crew compartment that forced the crew to flee.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 08 Aug 2020 17:22, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 17:21

Hans1906 wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:15
..
Copied stuff from the internet, like always.
Do not tell me, you bought the photos somewere...
I believe you are the one who posted a Google link to your collection.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 17:25

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:41

But the 17 pounder was NOT available to the U.S. Army, and, for some reason, the British were loath to share
them with their ally during the war.

As usual the duplicitous Brits take everything and give nothing in return.

Your ignorance is staggering and must be willful.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 17:30

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:41
you stated that 75% of hits on a Panther would penetrate. The U.S. Army tests would seem to
disagree.
The Normandy survey found 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 17:32

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:41
Which is why I wear a
.45 Long Colt as my carry gun.

I thought that was long ago proven to have more to do with organ size?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 17:46

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:41
.............which would have greatly reduced the carnage among
American Tank crews............
Unproven assumption more to do with the wish-fulfillment of those that argue it.
First you would have to have data on both German and Allied crew casualty rates and there are no German studies I know off. Those with an agenda take the Allied crew loss surveys and falsely claim they are 'horrendous' with proof that they are any such thing.
I have done some superficial tallies of British/German encounters where both sides crew losses are known and there is no great difference between the two. For example at Villers Bocage more Tiger crew members dies per knocked out tank than Cromwell/Sherman crews.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 17:50

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:41
This gave the German crews a distinct advantage, in that they could penetrate
a Sherman at long range and any aspect, while the U.S. crews had to maneuver closer and go for side and
rear shots.............
Bayerlein does not agree:



Panzer lehr Division 1944-45


http://www.helion.co.uk/published-by...ies-vol-1.html

page 82

The Panther tanks all got stuck. I had been told that the terrain near St Lo was better suited for tank operations than that around Caen. Although I could have taken either the Mark IV or Mark V (Panther), I relied on what I had been told and took the latter. Actually the Mark IV would have been more suitable; the Mark V has too long a barrel and is not maneuverable. It was too wide and had too low a slope to negotiate the hedged dikes; it had to stick to the roads. ...................

............................. We could only knock out enemy tanks at a maximum range of 200 yards, as the hedges concealed everything farther away. The German tanks are built for long range firing in the desert and on the Russian front. We could not use the Mark V cross-country in Normandy. The British Cromwell tank had a sharper angle of approach and, therefore, could scale the hedgerow dikes. We believed it had been specially built for use in Normandy, where the terrain is similar to that in southern England.



Bayerlein again :

While the PzKpfw IV could still be used
to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved
ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman
because of its maneuverability and height was
good . . . [the Panther was] poorly suited for
hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long
gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneu-
verability in village and forest fighting. It is
very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears
out the front final drives, made of low-grade
steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-
train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side
armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-
bombers. Fuel-lines of porous material that
allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank
causing a grave fire Hazard. Absence of vision
slits make defense against close attacks impossible

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6920
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Aug 2020 18:11

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 16:41

Subsequent evaluation of the damage inflicted on several of the eleven captured
Panthers by M10s of the 899th Tank Destroyer Battalion revealed that none of the
3-inch rounds had succeeded in penetrating the front glacis of any of the tanks
.


This comes directly from the SHAEF Tank Folder, page 922. ( It was a priority message from
Eisenhower at First Army HQ to Lieutenant General W. Bedell Smith at SHAEF.)

Did you bother looking up how/where those Panthers were knocked out?

paulrward
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 20:14

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by paulrward » 08 Aug 2020 20:25

Hello All :

Wow ! Seven replies, all from the same person ! Someone must have had their moment stepped on...
I wonder what tests they are talking about because I do not know of any
firing tests on a Tiger in Normandy
Well, everybody, THAT SETTLES THAT ! If Mr Kenny hasn't heard of it, then it must NOT have happened !

As usual the duplicitous Brits take everything and give nothing in return.
Well, during the war, the British took all of our work on cracking IJN Codes, promising to reciprocate by giving us
the technology to break the German Enigma system - After they got their hands on the JN 25 stuff, they clamped
down and refused to provide us with what they promised. Remember, the phrase " Perfidious Albion " didn't
come from nowhere....

But, it came out all right in the end, because we cut Britain off from the Manhattan Project, and made them ruin
their countryside with the Windscale Disaster.

The Normandy survey found 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated.
How many of these hits were fired at the front ?


However, if we go to Report No. 12, - No2 Operational Research Section, Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank
Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th July 1944
, from the publication, Canadian Military History, Volume 7, Number 1, Winter 1998, pp.73-77.

which can be found at

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent ... ontext=cmh

The Preface has this telling summary:
The OR section examined most of the major weapons systems in use in Normandy. The
following report, No.12 - "Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th
June and 10th July 1944" continued pre-invasion studies of the performance of Allied armour,
confirming the most pessimistic views about the inferiority of the Sherman tank. This
report documented what every crew member knew: the Sherman was dangerously vulnerable
to all calibres of German anti-tank guns. The statistics were stunning. Sixty per cent of Allied
tank losses were the result of a single shot from a 75 mm or 88 mm gun and two-thirds of all
tanks "brewed up" when hit. German armour piercing shells almost always penetrated and disabled
a tank; the armour offered so little protection that the only way to survive was to avoid being
targeted.
And an examination of the data presented in the report indicates that 95% of german 75mm and 88mm
hits penetrated the armor of the Sherman, and that the average number of hits required to knock
out a Sherman was 1.63. It further shows that, of 40 Shermans hit by German AP Shot, 33 'Brewed Up'.

So,the numbers are telling: 95 % of Shermans hit by Tigers or Panthers were penetrated, and 80 % of those
'Brewed Up'. America's Finest Lighter, indeed....


I thought that was long ago proven to have more to do with organ size?

Spot On, Mr. Kenny ! Large Organ, Big Gun ! small organ, small gun. British Subjects: No Guns. Which means....
Oh. Sorry. I guess that's why your posting sounds a lot like a certain form of envy often talked about by
Freudians.....

For example at Villers Bocage more Tiger crew members dies per knocked
out tank than Cromwell/Sherman crews.

And, Mr. Kenney, at Villers Bocage, how many Tigers were knocked out as opposed to Cromwells and Shermans ?
The best records I can find of this rather confusing action is that, of some 60 British tanks deployed, some 25 were
knocked out of action. On the German side, of some 41 tanks deployed, appx. 9 were destroyed, including 6
Tigers, and 6 more tanks were damaged, but towed away and repaired. British casualties amounted to about
217, while German casualties, if we triple the number suffered by the 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, which
was about 27, then we have about 81 German casualties. So, were the German tank crew casualties really
worse than the British ?

The Panther tanks all got stuck.........

............................. We believed it had been specially built for use in
Normandy, where the terrain is similar to that in southern England.

Again and again, when the Sherman is called into question, the Sherman Fan Boys harp on it's superiority in the
Bocage Country of Normandy. What about the rest of France, and the Low Countries, and Germany ? Once you
get yourself out of the Hedgerows, how did the maneuverability of the Panthers stack up to the Shermans ? And,
once you got into the broad, flat, open fields of Central France, what happened to the Shermans when the
Panthers could engage them, hull down, at long range ?

Mr. Kenny, we aren't just talking about Normandy here. France is a big place. The heavy loses of Shermans
really got bad once the German armor had some maneuver room.

Did you bother looking up how/where those Panthers were knocked out?

I wonder if a lot of them were mechanicals that had to be abandoned, or if a some of them were nobbled by air
attacks and over run by the Allied advance. Seems a lot more likely than their being Sherman kills....



Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Return to “USA 1919-1945”