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.
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 » 10 Aug 2020 23:22

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Aug 2020 22:54
Error is pointed out:
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
10 Aug 2020 22:00

This caught my eye. Which diesel engines were those?
Reply with laughable attempt to recover from claiming the Panther had a diesel engine:
paulrward wrote:
10 Aug 2020 22:41

The German 234 series eight wheeled armored car had a very excellent, light weight diesel that was intensely
interesting to the Allies. Captured examples were studied. This also applied to the U-Boat diesels, which
the USN had a major interest in, as it must be remembered, a lot of the technology in USN submarine diesels
was based on late 1920s - early 1930s German patents that the United States had licensed. As a result, the
German U-boats that were captured were carefully picked over by USN technical types, as well as industry
experts, to find any technical details that could be adapted to improve the USN submarine fleet.
Why in the world would the British or Americans be interested in the Czech Tatra diesel engine, when they already had very similar diesel engines of their own. The Americans had already decided they did not want to use diesels in armored cars, half tracks, or tanks two years before this, despite about ten years of reasonable development success by Allis-Chalmers, Grey Marine, Continental, Hercules, and others.

Laughable attempt indeed.
Original claim where there is no doubt it is a Panther engine that is being discussed:
Yeah that is up there with the claim about you going ballistic over him saying the hulks were used for target practice. Trumpistic-style critical thinking at its finest. Pretty irrelevant to the actual discussion as well.

As a relevant aside though, I had forgotten that the Norrey Panthers were so extensively used as target practice. I wonder if Ike actually conflated the British reports of trying the 17-pdr, 6-pdr, 3", and 75mm guns against them with the reports of the Shoeburyness tests? There does not appear to be more than passing reference in the ETOUSA Ordnance records to British tests. I suspect Ike received any "analysis" of the Norrey shoots orally at second-hand, so it would have been relatively easy for him to mash them together in his mind. Have you run into any other British field tests against Panthers and Tigers in the June time frame that could explain Ike's remark?
"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 » 11 Aug 2020 00:04

Hello All :

To Mr. Michael Kenny "

Ritgen wrote his book on Panzer Lehr in 1979, nearly a decade before the end of the Soviet Union, when the
only records that came out of the East were lies. ( Do not forget, some 20,000 U.S. Army personnel and more
that 30,000 Commonwealth soldiers ended up in the Gulags after the war, and they NEVER came out !)

Ritgen says 1.6 million German soldiers died in the Gulags. According the the West German Government
Commission headed by Erich Maschke to investigate the fate of German POWs, 3,060,000 German military
personnel were taken prisoner by the USSR and that 1,094,250 died in captivity. According to German
historian Rüdiger Overmans ca. 3,000,000 POW were taken by the USSR; he put the "maximum" number of
German POW deaths in Soviet hands at 1.0 million.

However, this does NOT include Austrians and Czechs who were theoretically part of the Wehrmacht forces,
and ended up being shipped East after the War ended. It also does not include Hungarians and Italian soldiers
who also died in the Gulags. And it definitely does not include the large number of German civilians who were
shipped East, and never heard from again. So, a figure of 1.6 million is not that far out of line with reality.


Have you run into any other British field tests against Panthers and Tigers
in the June time frame that could explain Ike's remark?

Mr. Kenny, the number of copies of British Field Tests from the WW2 era that can be found here in the United
States is VERY limited. Now, I confess, it is quite possible that some African Swallows might have carried some
copies over wrapped in a length of creeper, but I haven't seen any.......



Next, Mr. Anderson stated :
Why in the world would the British or Americans be interested in the Czech
Tatra diesel engine

Mr. Anderson, have you never heard of Operation PaperClip ? The United States was interested in EVERYTHING the Axis Powers had. At the end of the war, we shipped an entire squadron of Me 262s to
the United States and flew the hell out of them, even dogfighting them against the P-80 A Shooting Star !
We brought over U-boats, tanks, any airplane we could find, and, wait for it....... Rockets ! That's right,
for the next five years, the United States was launching V-2s, while having Von Braun improve the Technology. The Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama had so many Germans living there that people began referring to
it as ' Huns-ville '.

We took large numbers of Japanese aircraft, and a submarine as well German infantry weapons were
studied, and some were even copied later by nations that were part of NATO. Face it, as the war was
ending, the United States embarked on the greatest, most systematic theft of Technology since the
Cro-Magnons stole fire from the Neanderthals !


Mr. Anderson, I have been an Engineer for most of my life. The basic rule of Engineering is:

" Never Design what you can Copy. Never Copy what you can Trace. Never Trace what you can
PhotoCopy, 'White-Out' the trademarks, and Re-PhotoCopy into a usable, lawsuit free design...... "


Mr. Anderson stated :
I had forgotten that the Norrey Panthers were so extensively used as
target practice
Now that Everyone's memory has been refreshed, perhaps Mr. Kenny might want to go back and look at the
photo of the Panther lying on it's side. You know, the one with the nice lady and her nice little boy. Take
another look at the four shell impacts on the front Glacis Plate, and tell me what you think. I am eager to
hear your thoughts on them.


Respectfully :

( and still in pain )

Paul R. Ward
Last edited by paulrward on 11 Aug 2020 00:12, edited 2 times 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 !

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

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by paulrward » 11 Aug 2020 00:04

Double Post
Last edited by paulrward on 11 Aug 2020 00:07, 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 !

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 » 11 Aug 2020 00:05

I believe all the 'confusion' is because of this passage:


https://wargaming.info/1998/us-army-194 ... zHRKShKiMp


The board met pursuant to the foregoing order at Headquarters, First U.S. Army, APO 230, at 1400 on 12 July 1944 and on subsequent dates to conduct the firing tests. The final meeting was held on 30 July 1944.

Present: All Members.

Purpose: To conduct tests to determine the effectiveness of tank and anti-tank weapons in First U.S. Army, against the German Mk V “Panther” and Mk VI “Tiger” tanks.

1a. Firing was conducted on terrain permitting 1500 yards maximum range with zero angle of site. All guns and types of ammunition, suitable for anti-tank purposes, available to First U.S. Army were defeated on targets whose armour plate was slightly burned. Upon determination of critical ranges, all penetrations were proven against the armor plate of a German Mk V “Panther” Tank with armor undamaged and in excellent condition. All firing was conducted normal2 to the target. No firing was conducted against the German Mk VI “Tiger” Tank as there were none available.


I think most people see against the German Mk V “Panther” and Mk VI “Tiger” tanks.
and ignore No firing was conducted against the German Mk VI “Tiger” Tank as there were none available.

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 » 11 Aug 2020 00:36

paulrward wrote:
11 Aug 2020 00:04
look at the
photo of the Panther lying on it's side. You know, the one with the nice lady and her nice little boy. Take
another look at the four shell impacts on the front Glacis Plate, and tell me what you think.
I think you are delusional.
Circle them for me.
Norrey Panther , n.jpg
Norrey Panthers (268).jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 » 11 Aug 2020 00:37

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Aug 2020 00:05
I believe all the 'confusion' is because of this passage:(snip)

I think most people see against the German Mk V “Panther” and Mk VI “Tiger” tanks.
and ignore No firing was conducted against the German Mk VI “Tiger” Tank as there were none available.
Yeah, I have a copy of the original, the transcription makes it less obvious the "purpose" was a statement of intent entirely separate from the outcome of the actual tests. They meant to fire at Tiger tanks, but did not do so.

Of course, yet again, this first American field test was begun ten days after Ike's first cable to Bedell Smith...and did not include the 76mm Gun, in either the Medium Tank M4 or the GMC M18, So, yet again, it provides no insight into what caused Ike's confusion. I still suspect that was due to him hearing second hand reports of the British firing on the Norrey Panthers.
"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 » 11 Aug 2020 01:32

Hello All ;

Before we go on, Mr. Kenny, the second photo you just posted, the Panther from the right front, appears to
have been taken at the same time as the photo of the Panther being examined by the Canadian Officers. My
question to you is, if the Panther was being used for weapons tests / target practice, was this new photograph
taken while the tests were going on, and were there any additional shots fired at the Panther AFTER this
photo was taken ? The reason I am asking is, there appears to be some differences between the new photo,
and the photo of the Panther with the nice lady and her little boy.

Please let me know.

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 !

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 » 11 Aug 2020 01:37

I made the mistake of indulging my curiosity and looked at a post from a blocked member. Dear good, but the delusion is strong with this one.
Do not forget, some 20,000 U.S. Army personnel and more
that 30,000 Commonwealth soldiers ended up in the Gulags after the war, and they NEVER came out !
Pretty easy to forget actually, since it never happened, but if this individual has some proof for either claim, I'd just love to see it.
this does NOT include Austrians and Czechs who were theoretically part of the Wehrmacht forces,
and ended up being shipped East after the War ended.
Sigh...more delusion without a shred of proof. Austria was part of the Groß Reich after the Anschluß. Yes, any Austrian casualties most certainly were counted during wartime and postwar by WASt. Ditto any Czechs or Poles if they were enlisted as Reichsdeutsche of Volksdeutsche. They were not "theoretically" anything. If they were enlisted or drafted into the Wehrmacht, then they were Wehrmacht.
It also does not include Hungarians and Italian soldiers
who also died in the Gulags.
Seriously? Logic isn't the strong suit with this one. Why would the Wehrmacht count the casualties of other sovereign states among their own casualties?

Of course, what it has to do with "where does the ronson nickname come from?" is beyond me.
Mr. Kenny, the number of copies of British Field Tests from the WW2 era that can be found here in the United
States is VERY limited.
Oh, easily confused as well...that was my question, not Michael's.

BTW, there are extensive holdings of British documents in NARA on microfilm, and vice versa at Kew of American documents. In this case though I have not run into anything comparable to the documentation of the four formal ETOUSA firing tests in the British record, which was what I was talking about.
we shipped an entire squadron of Me 262s to
the United States and flew the hell out of them, even dogfighting them against the P-80 A Shooting Star !
More comic book history. No, there was no "entire squadron of Me 262s" and no, they did not do any "dogfighting" with the P-80. They did static comparisons using the P-80 performance trial data compiled by the few flyable aircraft of the 54th ADS, Watson's Whizzers (Project LUSTY) and the data compiled by Farnborough in AVIA 6/9201. While ten Me 262 were shipped to the US, only three were fighters...and the sole attempt by the USAAF to do a "fly off" between an Me 262A-1a/U3 (Wk. Nr. 500453), coded "White 25", a reconnaissance version, and a P-80 was cancelled after the fourth engine change was made to the 262 [correction] it got into the air, for just over 4 hours, in 8 flights, but never "faced off" against the P-80[/correction]. :lol:

I love the piling on of gaseous irrelevancies..."the USN evaluated the U-Boot", which apparently proves they were examining the "diesel engines" in Panther tanks. Oh, and the repeated argumentum ad verecundiam is simply priceless. "I'm an enguneure, so I know my numbres".

Christ on a crutch, but kick me please if I ever make the mistake again of actually reading one of these trashbucket replies. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Richard Anderson on 11 Aug 2020 03:39, edited 1 time in total.
"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

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 11 Aug 2020 01:45

paulrward wrote:
10 Aug 2020 02:33
Hello All :

To Mr. Thumpalumpacus :

They were not apparently interested in the wheel, but rather the torsion bar suspension system. The torsion bars on a Panther run from one side of the hull to the other, and are down at the bottom of the hull. Removing them with the Turret Basket and the engine / transmission down there would be a bear, especially in the field.
Would it not still be easier to jack the tank up and work from underneath? Assuming that the Germans had to perform inspections and maintenance on the suspension, how did they perform those? I would assume that jacking the tank up would be preferable to tipping it, doing the inspection and maintenance, and then tipping it back. However, I don't know the suspension layout nor access points, so forgive what might be an ignorant question.
paulrward wrote:
10 Aug 2020 02:33
If you think it can't be done, there are a few YouTube Videos showing how the British Tank Recovery Vehicle Teams could put a tank back on it's tracks, so it is simply a matter of F = M A . Or, to put it another way, B. F. & M. I.
Oh, I don't at all doubt it can be done; I've seen it done in rollover automobile accidents as a firefighter in the USAF. It just seems to me a more difficult way to get at the desired parts than jacking the vehicle up.
paulrward wrote:
10 Aug 2020 02:33
This gave the technical guys access to the bottom of the Panther. You can see from the photo of the bottom of the Panther that it appears they spray washed an area clean, to get the muck and grease off the bottom, and then they simply removed some really BIG bolts, and, voila! the underside of the tank is open for pillaging !
That makes some sense.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, and entertaining someone who has a lot to learn about this stuff.

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 » 11 Aug 2020 01:50

paulrward wrote:
11 Aug 2020 01:32
Hello All ;

Before we go on, Mr. Kenny, the second photo you just posted, the Panther from the right front, appears to
have been taken at the same time as the photo of the Panther being examined by the Canadian Officers. My
question to you is, if the Panther was being used for weapons tests / target practice, was this new photograph
taken while the tests were going on,...........
I posted the source of the photos in their original album. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can work out what was going when the photos were taken. Should be very easy for a highly qualified engineer to work it out. Careful study of all the air views posted in the linked thread will also reveal something interesting about the 3 eastern Panthers.

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

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by paulrward » 11 Aug 2020 02:09

Hello All :

I am sorry, Mr. Kenny, but in your posting # 32 in this thread, you simply posted five photos, with no
supporting documentation, which was why I initially was not aware you were posting photos of Norrey
Panthers.

Also, I have run across some more photos of our favorite dead Panther, if you would like, I can e mail
them to you as an attachment.

Finally, I found another photo of a Panther. I am not sure, but it appears that the front Glacis Plate
suffered both penetrating and non-penetrating hits. What do you think ?

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward

Dead Panther 5.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 !

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 » 11 Aug 2020 04:33

paulrward wrote:
11 Aug 2020 02:09
in your posting # 32 in this thread, you simply posted five photos, with no
supporting documentation, which was why I initially was not aware you were posting photos of Norrey
Panthers.

This is the text above the photos in that post


Michael Kenny wrote:
08 Aug 2020 15:49

Like this air view of 6 knocked out tanks just above Norrey-en-Bessin in June 1944.
The air view shows 6 Panthers and then the ground views of some of the Panthers.

User avatar
Dwight Pruitt
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 26 Aug 2002 05:53
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Dwight Pruitt » 11 Aug 2020 04:48

paulrward wrote:
08 Aug 2020 20:25

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.
Like at Arracourt?

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

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by paulrward » 11 Aug 2020 04:53

Hello All :

Mr. Anderson Posted :
More comic book history. No, there was no "entire squadron of Me 262s"
and no, they did not do any "dogfighting" with the P-80. They did static comparisons
using the P-80 performance trial data compiled by the few flyable aircraft of the
54th ADS, Watson's Whizzers (Project LUSTY) and the data compiled by Farnborough
in AVIA 6/9201. While ten Me 262 were shipped to the US, only three were fighters...
and the sole attempt by the USAAF to do a "fly off" between an Me 262A-1a/U3
(Wk. Nr. 500453), coded "White 25", a reconnaissance version, and a P-80 was
cancelled after the fourth engine change was made to the 262 without getting
it into the air
The level of ignorance in this posting is breathtaking. First, the USAAF DID have a squadron of ex German
jets, consisting of eleven ( NOT TEN ! ) Me 262s and four Arado 234s. All of them, at one time or another,
flew in the U.S. and much data was gathered on them. While stationed at Freeman Field, Indiana, when
flying, they were accompanied by either a P-38 Lightning or one of two P-47 Thunderbolts that were stationed
at the field and used as ' hacks ' and as impromptu ' chase planes. This was done to both provide backup if
a malfunction occurred in the air, which was not uncommon, and to provide radio communication with the
Control Tower for take off and landing operations. While on these test flights, when time allowed, it was
common practice for the chase plane and the Me 262 to engage in impromptu mock dog fights

In the spring of 1946, Me 262, Assigned Number FE4012, was chosen to carry out a series of comparison
flights with USAAF fighters at Wright Patterson Field. FE4012 had been built as an unarmed reconnaissance
aircraft, and so, to improve it's performance, the nose was removed from FE888 and placed on FE4012, at
which time it was ferried to Wright Patterson.

While there, it was flown by Colonel Watson, commander of Watson's Whizzers, for a total of some 4.5 hours
of test flying, with another .5 hours of post engine change qualification flying. While flying at Wright Patterson,
it was invariably accompanied by a chase plane, for the same reasons as at Freeman Field. On at least one of
these flights it was accompanied by a P51D, but on others the chase plane used was a P80A, as the P51 was
found to be too slow to keep up with the Messerschmidt, and time spent re-locating the chase plane ate
up valuble flight time.

At this point in time, the Jumo engines on the Messerschmidts were reaching the end of their life expectancy,
and there were few spare parts to keep them going. Cannabalization was the order of the day, but there were
two in flight engine failures that resulted in single engine landings, and two more instances where flights
had to be aborted due to engine issues. Despite this, much data was gathered, and, when the ' test cards '
were completed on a given flight, the pilot of the P80A and Colonel Watson would often engage in
impromptu ' tail chasing ' to use up fuel prior to landing. The results of these mock dogfights proved that
the Me 262 had more power and a higher top speed than the P80A, though the Shooting Star had a better
roll rate and a slightly better rate of climb due to it's lower wing loading and lighter weight.

The USAAF was getting ready to carry out a mock dog fight for the benefit of some VIPs when the Me 262 had
another engine failure on the ground, and this time, due to a lack of parts, Colonel Watson's maintenance
crew was simply unable to get the aircraft flying again. This was in August, 1946, so the test was ended, and
the aircraft was dis assembled and shipped by truck to a storage depot, and never flew again.


How do I know this ? Because three doors down from my house, growing up in what is now the Silicon Valley,
was an engineer who worked for Lockheed, who had flown P-38s in the Pacific, transitioned to jets in
1945, and, after leaving the service after the Korean War, had finished college and gone to work for
Lockheed Corporation. He was one of the ' chase pilots' in the P80A Shooting Stars. And, while he was
living in my neighborhood, he built a 12" Newtonian Telescope in his garage.

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 !

User avatar
Dwight Pruitt
Member
Posts: 425
Joined: 26 Aug 2002 05:53
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Dwight Pruitt » 11 Aug 2020 05:38

Thumpalumpacus wrote:
11 Aug 2020 01:45



Would it not still be easier to jack the tank up and work from underneath? Assuming that the Germans had to perform inspections and maintenance on the suspension, how did they perform those? I would assume that jacking the tank up would be preferable to tipping it, doing the inspection and maintenance, and then tipping it back. However, I don't know the suspension layout nor access points, so forgive what might be an ignorant question.
I've changed a few broken torsion bars in the field and in the motor pool, and while not my favorite thing to do as far as tank maintenance goes, tipping a tank on it's side never occurred to us. If we had suggested it, I promise a trip to the dispensary for an urinalysis would have been in our immediate future.
paulrward wrote:
10 Aug 2020 02:33
If you think it can't be done, there are a few YouTube Videos showing how the British Tank Recovery Vehicle Teams could put a tank back on it's tracks, so it is simply a matter of F = M A . Or, to put it another way, B. F. & M. I.
More likely, and much easier, a D7 simply pushed it over on its' side as happened a couple of hundred times clearing roads across France.
paulrward wrote:
10 Aug 2020 02:33
This gave the technical guys access to the bottom of the Panther. You can see from the photo of the bottom of the Panther that it appears they spray washed an area clean, to get the muck and grease off the bottom, and then they simply removed some really BIG bolts, and, voila! the underside of the tank is open for pillaging !
It's been my experience that the bottom of the hull is often the cleanest part of the tank, or more correctly, the most worn because brush, dust, etc wears debris away rapidly. It's also been my experience that grease on the hull bottom is a sign of trouble and not the norm.

I'm also not sure why the Allies would have went to that much trouble because torsion bar suspension was a known quantity in autos since the late 20s and in tanks since the early 30s. The M24 tank and M18 TD both had torsion bars before we had even seen a Panther. Granted, the Panther had double torsion bars, but the principle is hardly innovative.

Return to “USA 1919-1945”