where does the ronson nickname come from?

[Michael Kenny]

Well, everybody, THAT SETTLES THAT ! If Mr Kenny hasn't heard of it, then it must NOT have happened !

Ok lets put it in plain English. There was not any firing trials on a Tiger hulk in Normandy in June that could be referenced in July.
Can't make it any clearer than that.

[Michael Kenny]

The Normandy survey found 75% of the hits on a Panthers penetrated.

How many of these hits were fired at the front ?

The statement is crystal clear. 75% of the hits on the surveyed Panther had penetrated. That means for every 4 rounds 3 went in. I note that you do not deny the totals but you can't really because you are using the Sherman survey yourself which was done by the same people. The 75% penetration rate is right up there with your Sherman 95% rate.

[Michael Kenny]

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.

Good for you. I am Irish by the way.

[Michael Kenny]

So, were the German tank crew casualties really
worse than the British ?

I dunno. You say your an engineer so work it out for yourself.

4 CLY tanks fully crewed that were penetrated at Villers = 9, KIA 12

Note: 1 Cromwell was short a crew member

SS 101 Tiger tanks fully crewed that were penetrated at Villers = 6, KIA 10

When you work out the KIA per tank number post it for us.

[Michael Kenny]

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.

Did they?
Where is the post where they said that.
Can we have a link so we can educate these people.
Oh hang on did you think it was a quote by me? I tried very hard to make sure I named the individual who said that about the Sherman but you must have missed that bit.

It was Fritz Bayerlein.
Have you heard of him before ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Bayerlein

Also look up the term 'The Grass is always greener on the other side' and see if you can work out how it might apply here.

[Michael Kenny]

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 ?

Ask the soldiers in Panzer-Brigade 106 & Panzer-Brigade 112.

The breakout started in mid August and by September 4th Brussels was liberated. So I reckon all these 'hull down Panthers' did not achieve much.

[Yoozername]

So, were the German tank crew casualties really
worse than the British ?

I dunno. You say your an engineer so work it out for yourself.

4 CLY tanks fully crewed that were penetrated at Villers = 9, KIA 12

Note: 1 Cromwell was short a crew member

SS 101 Tiger tanks fully crewed that were penetrated at Villers = 6, KIA 10

When you work out the KIA per tank number post it for us.

You are= You're

Your= Your, such as 'Your ancestry is Irish ...and you freely admit to that.

I am an Engineer, you're not. Your parents might be Irish. They drink an occasional Ginger-Beer,See?

[paulrward]

Hello All :

In Mr. Michael Kenny's Posting # 32 in this thread, he added a set of four photographs of German Panther Tanks
knocked out, to illustrate the fact that the armor of the Panther could be penetrated by Allied ( Sherman )
main guns. I have examined the four photographs of the Panther ( s ? ) and have some comments:

First, here are the photos, which I have re-organized, marked with annotations, and provided images of
to allow better study:

Dead Panther

If you study the photo I have labeled '1', you can see a group of apparently british officers studying a Panther that is
resting on it's tracks, with multiple penetrations of the turret side armor and side hull armor. Note the locations
of the holes in the side of the turret.

If you study the photo I have labeled '3', you can see a very nice lady and her nice little boy standing next to an
overturned Panther. Note the holes in the side of the turret, and the fact that one of the suspension wheels and
the tracks are missing from the Panther.

If you study the image I have labeled ' 1A-3A, you can see a cropped section of photo '1', showing the pattern of
holes in the side of the turret and hull , along with a cropped section of photo '3', that I have inverted to make it
match the positional orientation of photo '1'. Note the holes are in the same positions, both with respect to
orientations and spacings. It is obvious that this is the same Panther in both photo '1' and '3'.

Now, if you look at the photo I have labeled '2', you can see an overturned Panther, in precisely the same position
as the Panther in photo '3'. And, like the Panther in photo '3', the Panther in photo '2' is also missing one of it's
suspension wheels, along with one of the sections of it's under-body shell plating. It appears from photo '2' that
the Panther from photo '1' was overturned, a section of it's underbody removed, and a suspension wheel and a
torsion bar from it's suspension were removed for study by Allied Technical Intelligence. Your conclusion may
differ, but I feel this is an obvious inference.


From the above, it seems clear that all three photos, '1' , '2' , and '3' are of the same Panther, at various stages
in it's afterlife. I feel the evidence is compelling. So, what we have here are NOT three dead Panthers,
but only ONE.


Next, we have photo '4'. Here are a group of men posing in front of a Panther resting on its disabled treads, with
one neat hole in the Turret side armor, over which has been painted a Swastika. My feeling is, that this is a
photo of a Panther that had it's drive. suspension, of a track knocked out, and was abandoned, and, after being
used for penetration tests by Allied Technical Intelligence, was painted with a Swastika and used for propaganda
purposes. But, your conclusions may differ.


But, based on the photos, it may indeed be the same Panther in photos '1','2', and '3', which would mean we still
have only ONE dead Panther. And, based on the evidence of the photos, nothing suggests it was knocked out
by an Allied tank, but rather may have been disabled by a mine, an air attack, an artillery strike, or simply a
mechanical failure that the crew could not deal with in a combat situation.


Finally, we return to the photo 3, with the nice lady and her little boy. I have taken the liberty of copying a
cropped section of this photo, enlarged it, and added it. I label this image, photo '3 B' . If you study the
image carefully, you can see where I have added four circles around areas I feel are worthy of study. If you
go back and look carefully at photo '3', it appears that those four areas are places there the front glacis was
struck by high velocity rounds, and where, in each case, penetration was NOT achieved and the impacting rounds
simply 'splashed' off the front of the Panther.


Having studied the photos, I have come to the following conclusions.

1. A Panther had either it's suspension, a drive sprocket, or a track hit in combat, rendering the Panther immobile.
The crew immediately evacuated the damaged tank, leaving it on the battlefield.

2. The Panther was recovered in place by the Allies, who used it for tests. They fired numerous rounds at the
Front Glacis, Right Side of the Hull, and Right Side of the Turret, achieving penetrations of the Sides and Turret,
but failing to penetrate the Front Glacis.

3. The Allies then fired one, neat aimed shot into the Left Side of the Turret, painted a Swastika there, and posed
some soldiers for propaganda purposes.

4. The Panther was then turned on it's side, a belly panel was removed, and the tracks, a suspension bogie, and a
torsion bar were removed for study.

5. The Panther was then abandoned in place, and a Nice Lady and her Little Boy stopped for 'selfies'.


What is significant here is that, based on the photo, the Allies were UNABLE to penetrate the Front Glacis Armor,
despite their having a Panther in front of them, sitting helplessly as a target for fire at any range and angle.

Which bears out the stories told by M4 Sherman veterans of their being unable to penetrate the frontal armor of
the Panther, even when they were using the 75mm gun and AP ammunition.



Now, I have a question for Mr. Kenny : Mr. Kenny, in descriptions regarding combat between M4 Shermans and
both Tiger and Panther tanks, American tankers have described how, when their shells hit the frontal armor of
the German tank, it simply bounced off, and did no damage, but only left what was described as a " Blue Spot '
on the armor of the German tank.

Mr. Kenny, Exactly WHAT was that ' Blue Spot ' ?


Respectfully :

Paul R Ward

[Michael Kenny]

this is a
photo of a Panther that had it's drive............. suspension, of a track knocked out, and was abandoned............ rather may have been disabled by a mine, an air attack, an artillery strike, or simply a
mechanical failure that the crew could not deal with in a combat situation................. A Panther had either it's suspension, a drive sprocket, or a track hit in combat, rendering the Panther immobile..........................The crew immediately evacuated the damaged tank, leaving it on the battlefield...............The Panther was recovered in place by the Allies, who used it for tests.

This must be a wind-up.

Are you seriously telling us you have never head of the engagement at Norrey en Bessin on June 9th 1944?


viewtopic.php?p=2012679#p2012679

How could anyone event attempt to pass these very well documented battlefield wrecks off as anything but battlefield losses.

I really am shocked at the level of ignorance on display here.

[Yoozername]

99.9999% of penetrations on a Tiger II were on the side and rear. Therefore, the Tiger II is WORSE than a a Panther!

[paulrward]

Hello All ;

I will leave it to the un biased opinions of the members of this forum: Please study the pattern of shell holes
in the turret of the two photos that Mr. Kenny has provided, and which I have combined in the image that
I have labeled ' 1A - 3A ' . Then, note that in the photo I have labeled photo '1'. the Panther is upright,
and resting on it's tracks. In the photo I labeled photo '3', the ( aparently ) same Panther is now upside down,
and has no tracks on it's bogies, and what is more,is missing a bogie on the right side of the tank. Finally, note
how the Panther in the photo I labeled photo '2' is upside down, in precisely the same position at the Panther
in photo '3', and is missing both it's tracks, and the same bogie that is missing from the Panther in photo '3'.

In my opinion, photos '1' and '3' are definitely photos of the same Panther, photo '2' is very likely another
photo of this same Panther, and there is at least a possibility that photo '4' may be that same Panther.

Finally, note how, if you look carefully at the area where the belly plate has been removed from the Panther
in photo '2', it appears that the torsion bars have been removed from a section of the suspension. Also, note
how the area immediately aft of the removed belly plate appears to have been cleaned, possibly in an attempt
to remove oil / grease / mud, to allow the easier removal of the belly plates with tools available in the field.

And that would provide the answer as to why the Allies would take the time and trouble to turn over a 45 ton
tank. They wanted access to the torsion bars. They probably could not remove them from the bogie wheel
suspension linkage, and so took the whole assemblage away for study.


All I did was an unbiased examination of the photos. Now, some people may believe what they read to the
exclusion of everything else. As an Engineer, I have never been able to do that, it would have cost too much
money and too many people's lives and livelihoods.

Sorry, Mr. Kenny, if I stepped on your moment again.....


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

[Michael Kenny]

All I did was an unbiased examination of the photos. ....

A day late and a dollar short. Did it years back.

Here the 12th SS account of the debacle. 9 Panthers knocked out and 6 were total losses.

[Michael Kenny]

If you study the photo I have labeled '1', you can see a group of apparently british officers

Canadian Officers . See Album no.75. Photo taken a month after the Panthers were knocked out.

[Richard Anderson]

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.

Indeed, exactly what Eisenhower was talking about is a mystery. Of course what gobbledygook a "reference" to "Tank Folder, page 922" is supposed to mean is beyond me. The "dispatch" was actually a Confidential Priority letter, originally dispatched by cable, from Eisenhower to Smith, filed Jul 022020B 44 (SHAEF General Staff, G-3 Division, O&E Section, File 470.8, RG 331, NARA II; the letter is recorded in the Eisenhower Papers dated as 5 July, "Eisenhower Mss. 1795, Eisenhower to Walter Bedell Smith, 5 July 1944", pp. 1970-1971) when Bedell Smith received it is unclear. The full text is actually:

Based upon actual tests against captured enemy tanks show [sic] that 76 millimeter will not penetrate Tiger in front or flanks and will not penetrate Panther except on flanks.

The trouble is apparently in type of shell since British 6 pounder with so called Sabot shell has better penetrating qualities than 76 millimeter even though it is smaller and has lower muzzle velocity. Moreover I am told the new 90 millimeter gun the War Department is placing in Sherman will not be effective against Tiger or Panthers [Eisenhower was referring to the 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36].

As immediate stopgap, consider Ord Department should produce as an urgent project 76 millimeter shell of British Sabot type. Beyond this we should insist that new model tanks contain gun fully capable of dealing with heavily armored tanks. British 17 pounder does this and we can do the same.
Please have whole matter investigated probably with report ready for me on my return. I am considering sending Bull [Major General Harold Roe Bull, SHAEF G-3] home with our findings to make sure of our effectiveness in this important matter.

The "reference" to the 899th is also spurious and is not found in the Eisenhower letter to Bedell Smith, nor in his 4 July cable to General Campbell, Chief of Ordnance. The 899th of course did not use the 76mm, but rather the 3" gun, and did not encounter any Panthers until 11 July at St Jean de Daye.

Field tests against captured enemy tanks disclose that 76mm will not penetrate Tiger tank on front or flanks and will not penetrate Panther except on flanks.

Request immediate information on status of Sabot ammunition for 75mm and 76mm guns now in Theater.

First US Army worried about situation and demand ammunition with better penetration capabilities.

Weapon in new model tanks with capability if British 17 pounder in demand of Field Forces.

Statement of this possibility likewise required.

Oddly, in the second cable Ike states explicitly that they were "field tests", which deepens the mystery, given that there were ZERO 76mm guns in the field prior to 6 July 1944, when the ETOUSA G-3 authorized the shipment of 150 Medium Tanks M4A1 (76mm) W from Depot G-25 to the Continent. Nor where their any ETOUSA 76mm GMC M18 in the field prior to 6 July 1944; the earliest of those arrived with the 704th TD Battalion across UTAH on 13 July.

Furthermore, the ETOUSA tests all appear documented. There was the "Shoeburyness Test" of 23 May 1944, the "Balleroy Test" of 10 July 1944, the 1st Isigny Test of 12-30 July, and the "2d Isigny Test" of 19-21 August.

The first was not a "field test", but was rather done on the range at Shoeburyness under controlled conditions against "rolled homogeneous armor plate" of 120mm thickness, two plates of 100mm thickness placed against each other, and a 20mm homogenous plate backed by a 50mm face-hardened plate 6" behind it.

The other tests were "in the field", but occurred after Ike's cable. So what could he have been talking about? It is possible of course that he was talking about Shoeburyness and simply conflated the notion it was conducted against "captured enemy tanks"?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If they wanted to examine the wheels or suspension, couldn't they just jack the tank up if it was still upright? Turning it over only complicates the job of removing the wheel for inspection.