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: 4237
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Aug 2020 06:52

Yeah, ignorance is operating off of second-hand information from some guy somebody claimed to know who supposedly told them the "true" story.

There were 11 Me 262 shipped to the US, but only 10 were Whizzers aircraft.

Shipped to the US on SS Manawaska Victory:
Me 262A-1a (Wk. Nr. 111711) AKA FE-107, T2-711, not one of the Whizzers, but flown on 20 August 1945 in an attempted comparison with the P-80, except both engines caught fire and it crashed.

Shipped to the US on HMS Reaper:
Me 262A-1a/U3 (Wk. Nr. unknown) AKA Whizzers # unknown, FE-108 - transferred to the USN
Me 262A-1a/U4 (Wk. Nr. 170083) Whizzers # Unknown, FE # unknown
Me 262A-1a (Wk. Nr. 110836) AKA Whizzers 777, FE-110, T2-110
Me 262A-1b (Wk. Nr. 500491) AKA Whizzers 888, FE-111, T2-111
Me 262B-1a/U1 (Wk. Nr. 110165) AKA Whizzers 1i1, FE-609 - transferred to USN
Me 262B-1a/U1 (Wk. Nr. 110306) AKA Whizzers 999, FE-610, T2-610
Me 262A-1a/U3 (Wk. Nr. 500098) AKA Whizzers 666, FE-4011 - crashed at Pittsburgh, PA 19 August 1945
Me 262A-1a/U3 (Wk. Nr. 500453) AKA Whizzers 444, FE-4012, T2-4012 - attempted a fly off versus the P-80 in August 1946, completing 4 hours and 40 minutes in the air over 8 flights, including two single-engine landings, and four engine changes, in an attempt to keep it flying

The other two shipped on Reaper were possibly Me 262A-1a (Wk. Nr. 110956), Me 262A-2a (Wk. Nr. 112385), or Me 262A-1a (Wk. Nr. 110604). Another one intended for Reaper crashed in route to Cherbourg at Tilleul-Dame-Agnes, Eure on 18 June 1945 and was written off, Me 262A-1a/U4 (Wk. Nr. 170083) V083 "Pulkzerstörer."

Another 31 Whizzers aircraft were on Reaper, including one USAAF NA F-6. The other German aircraft were five Focke-Wulf Fw 190F, four Focke-Wulf Fw 190D, one Focke-Wulf Ta 152H, four Arado Ar 234B, three Heinkel He 219, three Messerschmitt Bf 109, two Dornier Do 335A, two Bücker Bü 181, one Doblhoff WNF 342 helicopter, two Flettner Fl 282 helicopters, one Junkers Ju 88G, one Junkers Ju 388, and one Messerschmitt Bf 108.

There was no "complete squadron" dog fighting with P-80...there were only ten aircraft, five went to the Navy, one of the USAAF aircraft crashed, and the last four were barely kept flyable.

This is the last time I make any sort of direct reply to this creature. He was banned for good reason, why he was let back is beyond me.
"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

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4237
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Aug 2020 06:58

Dwight Pruitt wrote:
11 Aug 2020 05:38
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.
:lol: Where you been Pruitt? Haven't seen you for a while.
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.
No way! They wanted to use the spray washer on it, that's why they turned it over. :lol: :lol: :lol:
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.
:lol: No, seriously, they wanted to use their new Mark 1 Pressure Washer on it.
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.
Yeah, that was one of the silliest things to come out of the master of respectful silliness. You want the patent numbers for the prewar American torsion bar designs? I happened to run across them while doing For Purpose of Service Test.
"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 08:05

Hello All ;

Once again, Mr. Anderson, you are in errror, though, of course, you are never in doubt....


Mr. Anderson stated :
Shipped to the US on SS Manawaska Victory:
Me 262A-1a (Wk. Nr. 111711) AKA FE-107, T2-711, not one of the Whizzers, but
flown on 20 August 1945 in an attempted comparison with the P-80, except both
engines caught fire and it crashed.

Me 262A m W Nr 111711, FE-107 , arrived at Wright Field, ( Now Wright Patterson ), and was Test Flown on
August 29, 1945, by USAAF Test Pilot Russ Schleeh. It was flown about a dozen time over nearly a year, until
August 20, !946 , when Walter J. McAuley took off for a comparison flight with Major Richard L. Johnson
in his P-80 A.
Just after finishing the test program both engines caught fire and lost power. McAuley bailed
out at about 7800 feet altitude, hitting his head on the tailplane. He lost his helmet and got a cut on his chin
and finally sprained his left ankle during his landing in a field, but he survived. McAuley said later: “I will never
jump out of a plane that burns just a little!”

The Me 262 came down near Xenia, Ohio, and the story was featured in local newspapers.

There is, in fact, extensive movie footage of it taking off at Wright, Landing, and in flight.

You can see it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLk_u7ibSeo



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 !

antwony
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 30 Jun 2016 09:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by antwony » 11 Aug 2020 11:12

aurelien wolff wrote:
05 Aug 2020 07:05
I got to wonder if these deregatory name for the sherman come from death trap (wich honestly shouldn't be use as a source for the sherman) or the narrative that sherman was a bad tank(wich seem to be quite a lot in documentary/pôp history article)
Is a actually a very good question as to whether it was post war, or not.

As to the narrative, it's a foundational myth of Wehrabooism. As to whether the less competent popular "historians" picked it up from neo Nazi post war revisionists or super critical western sources, is perhaps not worth ascertaining.

From my understanding, the Sherman, in common with all (most???) tanks of the time, had multiple ammunition storage bins including rounds stored in the turret. In common with every vehicle ever, when the hull was penetrated this ammunition had a serious effect on crew survivability.

Unlike, as far as I'm aware, any German tank, mid/late model Sherman stored all their ammunition under the floor in an armoured "wet" bin. The mid/late model "Ronson" had, arguably the best crew survivability of any WW2 tank when it was hit. Maybe that's why Wehraboos get so worked up about it, as it demonstrates that unlike their Nazi heroes, the Western armies were concerned about the lives of their men and had the engineering and production competence to improve their vehicles.

Conversely, for the more drooling, windowlicking Wehraboos a less negative evaluation of Shermans could lead them to question the nonsensical fantasy stories connected to their Panzer "aces", so it could be that too.
Michael Kenny wrote:
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?
The saddest thing is his bragging. 45LC is an 1800's round. They are used in big, old guns but the manufacturers of the ammunition can't make the ammunition too high powered as it will break the old guns and they'd get sued. He's bragging about have a big gun that shots weak bullets...
paulrward wrote:
11 Aug 2020 04:53
At this point in time, the Jumo engines on the Messerschmidts were reaching the end of their life expectancy.
To be generous, almost everything written about the Me262 was written by pro German fanbois. So, it's perhaps harsh to criticise you for repeating fallacies about the Allies being able to learn from the Germans. But recent, and presumably the initial (for some reason ignored...), research has shown how pathetic the German's jet engines were. They couldn't make Jet turbines and for an "engineer" to be talking about their life expectancy is ridiculous. Apart from establishing your credentials as an ignorant pro Nazi fantastist, I'm not really sure why you're choosing to bring this up in this thread

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 15:06

Dwight Pruitt wrote:
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.
I figured as much, hence my sarcasm. :D

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by wm » 11 Aug 2020 16:59

Richard Anderson wrote:
07 Aug 2020 16:40
As part of that search I also looked for derogatory references and it all - repeat, all - appears to stem from the series of articles written by Hanson Baldwin in the New York Times in December 1944 and January 1945
thee german blow I.jpg
thee german blow II.jpg
tanks and weapons.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4237
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Aug 2020 17:43

wm wrote:
11 Aug 2020 16:59
Richard Anderson wrote:
07 Aug 2020 16:40
As part of that search I also looked for derogatory references and it all - repeat, all - appears to stem from the series of articles written by Hanson Baldwin in the New York Times in December 1944 and January 1945
thee german blow I.jpgthee german blow II.jpg

tanks and weapons.jpg
Um, yes.

Hanson W. Baldwin, “The German Blow-I”, New York Times, Wednesday, 3 January 1945.
Hanson W. Baldwin, “The German Blow-II”, New York Times, Thursday, 4 January 1945.
Hanson W. Baldwin, “The German Blow-III”, New York Times, Friday, 5 January 1945.

And also:

Jack Bell, "Second Armored Drove Back Massed Tigers, Panthers in Roer River Battle," Chicago Daily News Service, 24 November 1944.
Hanson W. Baldwin, “German Royal Tiger Best Tank, Yanks Say”, New York Times, Monday, 4 December 1944.
“Citing claims of German superiority, Probe of US Weapons Demanded”, San Antonio Light, Monday, 8 January 1945.
Hanson W. Baldwin, “Tanks and Weapons-I” & “Tanks and Weapons-II”, New York Times, Monday & Tuesday, 5 & 6 February 1945.
“Death of a Myth”, Washington Post, 22 March 1945. This editorial was reprinted by the New York Herald Tribune, European Edition, 5 April 1945. It was clipped out and sent by Lieutenant General John C.H. Lee, Deputy Theater Commander, ETOUSA under Eisenhower, to General Holly who included it in AFV&W Section, Final Historical Report, Appendix C.
"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 18:45

Hello All :

Well, now the ' Pro-Nazi ' slurs have come out of the woodwork. Mr. Antwony, I am NOT Pro Nazi. I NEVER
have been, and I resent someone who hides behind an internet pseudonym implying that I am one. You should
be ashamed of yourself for your lack of courage. It must take a real man to hide behind internet anonymity
when he calls someone else a ' Nazi ' .


My criticisms of the Sherman have NEVER come from a pro nazi belief. Rather, they come from my engineering
background, in exactly the same way that I would criticize the design of the Soviet RBMK-1000 nuclear reactor,
the General Motors Corvair, and the British A.B.C. Wasp Radial Engine. They were bad engineering, and it
didn't matter who did the engineering, or what his nationality was, or his political beliefs, and no amount of
propagandizing or proselytizing could make them into good engineering.


The M4 Sherman was a 1941 design, which went into production in 1942, and shortly after had it's first combat
while serving with the British. It was essentially designed by men who had little or no experience with modern
warfare, working under the advice of technical experts who had served with an army that had been defeated in
the field several times by an enemy that arguably had superior weapons and a better knowledge of the tactics
to best employ them. The M4 Sherman was, in 1942, one of the two or three best tanks in the world.

By 1943, newer tanks were coming out. Unfortunately, the M4 Sherman got caught in a bureacratic nightmare.
One faction wanted to do nothing but continue production of a tank that they perceived as nearly perfect, a
second faction wanted to make upgrades and changes to improve the Sherman, and the third faction wanted
to replace it with a much more technically advanced tank. In such a situation, essentially, there could be
little or no improvement to the M4 Sherman. M4s being produced in 1944 with cast hulls had the same problems
with shell resistance that they had in 1942. The upgrades in the gun power occurred only slowly and grudgingly,
and they were insufficient to keep up with developments by the U.S. Army's adversaries.

As a result, by the summer of 1944, the M4 Sherman was showing it's age, and badly. German tanks, even the
upgraded PzKpw IV, had no trouble putting rounds through the hulls of cast-hull Shermans, and their guns
could penetrate the Sherman's frontal armor at ranges at which the Sherman could not reciprocate. The
Sherman crews resorted to sandbags and sacks of concrete, logs, old tracks, anything to try to improve the odds
of their survivability. For the crews of American M4s, they discovered that the new 76mm gun that they had
been promised was not all it was cracked up to be. And, when they asked for a 90mm gun, certain generals
responded by saying that they would never put a 90mm gun in a tank, because if they did, all the tank crews
would do is go out and hunt German tanks, which was the job for the Tank Destroyers....

So the M4 crews fought on, courageously, desperately hoping the war would end before their number came up.
For all to many, that hope was tragically futile.


Now, speaking as a engineer, What, exactly could have been done to make the M4 Sherman a better tank ?
Well, first, improve the frontal armor on the cast hull units by slabbing over the front of the hull a three sided
'box' consisting of three sections of 1/2" STS cold rold, heat treated armor. This would provide a 'bursting
layer' for enemy APC rounds that would have greatly improved the M4's survivability.

Second, at the same time you are building 76mm guns, put together a crash program to manufacture T26 type
turrets and 90mm guns, which you can ship across to England and retro fit on existing M4 Shermans and M10
Tank Destroyers, which would make them the equal or better to any tank in the German inventory.

'Finally, along with building tanks with the new HVSS suspension, have another crash program to manufacture
the ' Track Widening ' kits, that consisted of spacers to move the VVSS units away from the hull, and add 3 1/2"
duckbills ( growsers ) to both the inside and outside of the tracks, increasing the track width to 23 inches and
dramatically improving the flotation of the tank on wet, muddy ground. These could also be sent to Europe,
to retrofit to M4 Shermans and M10 Tank Destroyers before they were sent to France. After France was
partially liberated, a second depot could have been set up in France, to retrofit tanks already sent into combat.


The result would have been a heavier, slower tank with better armor, a better gun, and better off-road flotation,
All of these developments existed BEFORE February 1944, and so could have been put into production on a rush
basis, and shipped to England, at least in small numbers, before D-Day. Then, as time progressed, more and
more tanks could have been retrofitted, and the Germans would have had no individual qualitative superiority
in their armor with respect to the U.S. Army, leading to heavier German losses, and improved survivability and
morale for the U.S. Army Tankers.


Now, before someone pipes up and squeaks, " But you COULDN'T modify all those Shermans.... " I will remind
the readers of this Forum that EVERY SINGLE Boeing B-29 that came off the production line made it's first
cross country flight to an Army Air Corp Depot Field, where the aircraft were extensively modified to make
them Air Worthy, Combat Worthy, and capable of making a trans-oceanic flight to the Mariannas. The B-29
had MAJOR Problems, which were not eradicated before V-J Day, but which the Army Air Corps did it's level
best to alleviate. And this is a good example of the difference between the AAF and AGF - the AAF recognized
that the Germans and Japanese were constantly improving their aircraft, and that the U.S. would have to
keep up, both in terms of new designs and upgrades of old designs. The AGF, on the other hand, seemed more
willing to ' march in place ', believing that if a design worked today, all they had to do was make a lot more of
them, and it would work tomorrow. I have often wondered if this was because certain high ranking U.S. Army
Tank officers were originally from the Cavalry Branch - after all, how many modifications have they done
on the HORSE ?


Contrast this also with the Soviets. They started Barbarrossa with the T34 as their best tank. Now, only
a few of the T34s had the longer, high velocity 76mm gun. The Majority had the short, howitzer style weapon,
similar to the 75mm M2s and M3s that were fitted to most M4 Shermans up until early 1944. However, in the
desperate fighting of 1941, the Soviets quickly learned from their tank crews that, if the T34 had the long gun,
it could stand outside the effective range of the German tanks, and pick them off. Immediately the Soviets
rushed production of AT guns for their new production T34s. And, by the end of 1942, most, if not all, T34s
were going into battle with the high velocity AT gun.

But the Soviets didn't rest on their laurels. They embarked on a program to built a new Tank, the T44, that would
be fitted with an 85mm gun. This would be as powerful as any gun in the German inventory. And, as a backup
plan, in case the T44 was a failure, they worked on a method to install the T44 turret on a T34 hull, creating
the T34-85mm. Lo and behold, the T44 had developmental problems, but that didn't matter, the Soviets had
their Plan 'B' ready, and as a famous U.S. Special Forces Leader once said, " I love it when a Plan 'B' comes together "


The P51 Mustang was steadily improved throughout the war, likewise the P38, the P47, and, after the war, the
P80 Shooting Star was upgraded with a more powerful, more reliable engine that made it a relevant aircraft
five years later in the Korean War.


Mr. Antwony, you have said a lot of things in your posting, but none so ridiculously stupid as the following :
The saddest thing is his bragging. 45LC is an 1800's round. They are used in big,
old guns but the manufacturers of the ammunition can't make the ammunition too high
powered as it will break the old guns and they'd get sued. He's bragging about have a
big gun that shots weak bullets...
Mr. Antwony, do you know ANYTHING about handguns aside from what you read in magazines ? Let me clue
you in: Since 1911, the United States Army has used, off and on, the Model 1911 Colt .45 caliber semiautomatic
pistol. This is a direct result of the Thompson-LaGarde Cadaver Tests of 1904, which determined that a .45
caliber round was the optimum in man-killing, man-stopping, and man-dismembering. I suggest you go back
and read about those tests. They are shocking, horrible, and very informative.

I have used a 45 Long Colt Pistol since I was old enought to own one. And, let me clue you in: the modern
.45 Long Colt round has MORE powder behind it than the 45 Colt Auto. And a heavier bullet. And, because
you don't have to worry about feed jams, you can hand load a water cast linotype wad cutter
bullet with the nose bored out and a 1/4" steel ball bearing epoxied into it. Increase the powder charge
to +P, and you have round that will shoot as straight as the road to hell and put a hole in a man twice as wide.


To be generous, almost everything written about the Me262 was written
by pro German fanbois
Mr. Antwony, I am NOT a Pro German Fanbois. I recognize the Me 262 for what it was - a primitive, first
generation jet fighter with massive problems in terms of materials used and the quality of workmanship. It was
powered by two engines that were handicapped from the start by lack of critical materials that impacted the
metallurgy of components exposed to high temperatures. The Me 262 was as much a danger to it's own pilot as
it was to the enemy.

And, when the United States and Britain tried to study them, they quickly found out about these problems, in
some cases at the cost of the lives of the test pilots. Mr. Antwony, look at the record of the Me 262s operated
by Walter's Whizzers, the U.S. Navy, and the AAF at Wright Field. Aircraft FE 107, which was, to the best of
my knowledge, the last one to fly in the United States, had about four hours on the clock in Europe, and another
twelve in the U.S. before it was lost due to engine fires. ( And I know what caused the engine fires ! ) This
was high in terms of the rest of the U.S. Me 262 fleet. Some crashed on their first test flight in the U.S. Some
had engine failures, and had to be abandoned. A few had nose gear problems.

But, speaking as a NON Fanbois , I do have to point out one fact to you, Mr. Antwony : the Me 262 had a
HIGHER CRITICAL MACH NUMBER than the F80 Shooting Star or the F84 Thunderjet. The first fighter built
by the U.S. that could equal the Me 262 in a dive was the F86 Saber, which didn't fly until autumn of 1947, four
years after the Me 262.

Willy Messerschmidt was no idiot.

And that was why the USAAF was studying the Me 262, why they moved mountains to get our hands on them, why
they brought them over to America, why they test flew them as best we could, and why they tested them in
dogfights against a P80A Shooting Star. It was an enemy aircraft that scared the hell out of people like Jimmy
Doolittle, a man who had very little fear in him, and the USAAF wanted to extract every little secret we could
from this very dangerous enemy aircraft.



Finally, a note to Mr. Dwight Pruitt:

I agree, tipping a tank on it's side to maintenance the Torsion Bars would be ridiculous. But, we have to remember, this Panther was used for weapons tests / target practice. Go back and look at all the holes. Now,
if some of those shells rattled around inside the hull of teh Panther, and went through the Engine, the Fuel
Tanks, and the Radiator, then the bottom of that tank would have sloshing around in it a gooey soup of Gasoline,
Oil, Grease, and Ethylene Glycol/ Water mix. Now, Mr. Pruitt, would you like to go down into the dark hull
of that wrecked tank and try to extract a couple of the torsion bars ? Not me, baby.

And remember, they weren't trying to maintenance the Panther, they were Pillaging It ! Stripping it of anything
that might be usefull or interesting to the Technical Intelligence Branch.

So, they tipped it over. How did they do it? I have no evidence, AND NEITHER DO YOU OR MR. ANDERSON ! We
are speculating. They could have tipped it over as I described. Or they could have used a D-7, if they had one.
Or they could have used a Funny, like a Sherman Dozer.

As to the washing of the underside of the Panther, Mr. Pruitt, I will leave it to you. Go back and study the photos
that Mr. Kenny provided in posting # 32 in this thread, and look at the photo of the Panther turned on its side,
where you can see the belly of the tank. There is a large, semi-circular patch. There is a rectangular opening
in the belly of the tank that corresponds to the outlines of the forward belly panel on a Panther.

Now, Mr. Pruitt, if you had to get into a tank that was filled with a mix of flammable and toxic substances,
and you had to open up the bottom, wouldn't you give everything a quick wash before sinking your arms into it
up to your armpits ?

Finally, Mr. Pruitt, as for your comment :
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.

Yes, Mr. Pruitt, the United States and Germany used Torsion Bars. But the British tanks used either the Vickers
'Slow Motion' suspension, the Christy Suspension, or the Horstman Suspension. In fact, the British continued
to use the Horstman principle, with modifications, all the way into the 1960s, with the Chieftain tanks. ( They
now use the Hydro-Pneumatic / Hyper -Pneumatic suspensions on their latest line of Challenger I and II tanks )

Since all the photos show the Panther in question being studied by either Brits or Canadians, and NOT Americans,
it may be assumed that the Americans might NOT be interested in German Torsion Bars, but the BRITISH MIGHT !
Which is why it seems likely to me that, after shooting the shit out of that poor dead Panther, some limey looked
into the hatch, pointed at the suspension, and asked, " What'n'hell 'r those ? "

After some discussion, it was decided to retrieve some of whatever they were, and so, having a certain amount of
common sense, they tipped poor kitty on her side, allowed the goo to drain out of a few of the holes they had
so thoughtfully opened into her hull, and when the draining was done, they washed a section of the bottom where
the goo from inside had started seeping out of the hull, and then, with it nice and clean, removed a belly plate
( " That's what Wrenches are For ..........! " ) and then removed some of the suspension and one of the suspension
bogies, which you can see from the photo has suddenly, like the tracks, gone missing from poor dead kitty.....

Mr. Pruitt, go back and look at the Photos in posting # 32 ! Then tell me what you think.


All in all, a nice break from having to think about my root canal.



Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Last edited by paulrward on 11 Aug 2020 23:30, edited 4 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 !

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6894
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Aug 2020 18:57

And remember, they weren't trying to maintenance the Panther, they were Pillaging It ! Stripping it of anything that
might be usefull or interesting to the Technical Intelligence Branch.
Burnt-out Panthers were of no interest to the 'Technical Branch. You can see this tank has a completely collapsed suspension and totally wrecked armour before it was tipped and that means it is full of nothing but shrapnel & ash.
.
.
Norrey Panthers (3)bnb.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by paulrward » 11 Aug 2020 19:20

Hello All :

Yet, for SOME reason, SOMEONE removed the tracks from this Panther, tipped it on it's side, removed a belly
panel, and then removed some of the torsion bars and a bogie wheel.

And they did this all because they weren't interested.......

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 !

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6894
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Aug 2020 20:20

paulrward wrote:
11 Aug 2020 19:20


Yet, for SOME reason, SOMEONE removed the tracks from this Panther, tipped it on it's side, removed a belly
panel, and then removed some of the torsion bars and a bogie wheel.

A
A bit like Wittmann's Tiger which was pulled forward and the tracks removed.
paulrward wrote:
11 Aug 2020 19:20
And they did this all because they weren't interested.......
They were very interested in obtaining examples of German tanks-just not burnt-out German tanks.
If you consult the War Dairy of No 1 Canadian Section AFV(T) you will see that 'they' went to great lengths to find (usually remote) undamaged examples. This entry is almost certain to be the Norrey Panthers.

Screenshot_567nn.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8740
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: where does the ronson nickname come from?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 13 Aug 2020 02:11

A very brief discussion among the Moderators led to a consensus to lock this thread. Aside from the name calling there is the appearance of consistent trolling or provocative posts.

Return to “USA 1919-1945”