Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

[critical mass]

I would be interested to know what specifications are behind. MQ IT80D plate, and how exactly it differs from other IT80.
The hardness of german plate varied with section thickness and application type (mine protective bottom plate beeing rather soft on purpose, turret side walls harder than other)

[Richard Anderson]

I believe the British would have been aware of the early Panther tank's armor, and indeed most systems, better than any Western combatants.

The first time they got a Panther to test was Spring of 1944. The Russian sent one and another was captured in Italy. There was no time to do a full examination before the invasion.

They did receive a Panther (433?) from the Soviets. I believe a D model without zimmerit probably from Kursk.

Already answered:

It is a Panther captured at Kursk and shows it in the UK. It arrived spring 1944 and they did a quick 'test' of it before The Invasion. This report was the birth of the 'deflect a shot off the mantlet into the crew compartment' fable.

Kursk Panther at Bovington (4)-tile.jpg

Kursk Panther at Bovington (1)-horz.jpg

They encountered Panthers in Italy also (pre-D-Day). If anything, they should, by 1944, be testing for FH armor and chemical analysis and probably shooting at the tank before D-Day.

They never got a Panther fully tested before D-Day.

Screensb vbhot_2.jpg

This bears repeating.

I've lost track of the number of times I have said this. The "oh shit" moment was 5 June 1944 when the test report was published and distributed. I doubt any units in the assault or follow on saw it.

[EKB]

viewtopic.php?p=1970317#p1970317

You didn't answer the question in that thread, so I don't see the point of the link

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement about "losses" that has no relevance to engine trouble or mechanical failure. Number of vehicles written off during transit has no bearing on number of road breakdowns. A bad engine, transmission, or other parts were usually repaired or replaced.

It seems clear that Fürbringer believed that the Panther was not dependable except in short bursts of road activity. Elsewhere in the narrative, he writes that the railroad cars were bombed and this is when tanks were off loaded. He notes that a 200 km distance overstrained engines:


" Die I. Abteilung des SS-Panzer Panzer Regiments 9 welche während des Ostfeldzuges der Division auf dem französischen Truppenübungsplatz Mailly le Camp auf ihre Ausstattung mit << Panthern >> warten musste, war kurz vor Invasionsbeginn komplett ausgerüstet worden. Sire wurde der Division in den Raum westlich Paris zugeführt und fädelte sich dort in die Marschbewegungen ein. Bevor aber die Abteiling ausladen konnte, wurde ihr Eisenbahn transport von einem Bombenangriff erfasst. Hierbei entsanden erste Verluste an Panzern.

Zerstört wurden vor allem Räderfahrzeuge mit Betriebstoff und Munition. Um ein Uebergreifen des entstandenen Feuers zu verhindern, fuhren die Panzerbesatzungen die 45-Tonnen schweren << Panther >> beherzt auf den hohen Bahndamm und ohne nennenswerte Hilfsgeräte von den Eisenhbahnwaggons herunter. Anschliessend begann ein beschwerlicher mot. - Marsch in den Bereitsllungsraum von rund 200 Kilometer Länge, der an Mensch und Material, von allem an die Panzer-Motoren höchste Belastungen stellte.” …

… “ Die Panzerlage besserte sich langsam im Vergleich zu den ersten Einsatztagen. Dim kam daher, weil während des mot. Marsches in den Bereitstellungsraum an die Moteren der << Panther >> grösste Anforderungen gestellt werden mussten. So mancher Panzer blieb mit technischen Schäden auf der langen Anmarschstrecke liegen. Unter fer Führung von Obersturmführer Klein bekam die Panzer-Werkstatt-Kompanie eine grosse Aufgabe, die den Umständen entspechend zufriedenstellend verlief.”


See p.271, 301
Herbert Fürbringer. 9.SS-Panzer Division 'Hohenstaufen' 1944 | Normandie-Tarnopol-Arnhem. Heimdal, 1998.

[Yoozername]

This bears repeating.

I've lost track of the number of times I have said this. The "oh shit" moment was 5 June 1944 when the test report was published and distributed. I doubt any units in the assault or follow on saw it.

Another thing worth repeating...

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.' The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The British already had your "oh shit" moment ... when they didn't notice the Germans were using face hardened armor on the Panzers in the desert. Units did have field test kits for such occasions...I would think that in Jolly Old England's test facility they might have some better kit...they did have a nice new Panzer delivered to them. Were the US guys allowed to come over and futz with it?

There appears to be thickness numbers in white...did the Soviets do that? Or did it take months for the Brits to do it?

[j keenan]

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement about "losses" that has no relevance to engine trouble or mechanical failure. Number of vehicles written off during transit has no bearing on number of road breakdowns. A bad engine, transmission, or other parts were usually repaired or replaced.

You obviously do not under stand what your reading, I'll leave it at that !!

[Avalancheon]

Oh, so you actually missed where I said "sorry if I am mixing your argument with that of Yoozername"?

You have a bad memory and get confused easily. Talking with someone who constantly misunderstands and mixes up everything is tiresome. Theres no point getting butthurt about it.

Huh? Yeah. someone is really getting confused. You declared "Don't be too quick to dismiss this. We haven't adequately explored all the possible explanations" and then trotted out C.G. Erickson's claim that the Isigny Panther was an Ausführung A somehow manufactured with a face-hardened plate. Now you are saying the problem was "temper embrittlement", which has nothing to do with face-hardened armor and nothing to do with anything I argued for or against.

Yes, you are getting confused. You try to draw a link between what I said to CM, and what I said to you. The two subjects I spoke of are unrelated.
The problems with temper embrittlement are a distinct topic in themselves. I was discussing it in isolation, not about how it may have related to the Isigny tests.

This is where your confusion stems from. I wrote a message to CM saying: ''Exactly. It was widely known that the Germans were struggling to maintain quality control on their plates by 1944.''
viewtopic.php?p=2191561#p2191561

You then misconstrued this as having something to do with the Isigny tests: ''Are you agreeing with the C. Erickson that said that the Panther tested at Isigny was an Ausführung A with face-hardened glacis or the C. Erickson I remember that argued, vociferously, for years on TankNet that German quality control of their plates WAS maintained until the end of the war?''
viewtopic.php?p=2191601#p2191601

You seem to feel there was a contradiction in what I said to you (about the possibility of face hardened armor), and what I said to CM (about temper embrittlement). When in fact, there isn't. Because I talked about temper embrittlement without any relation whatsoever to how they may have influenced the Isigny tests. You became further confused because what I said didn't line up with what C. Erickson said.

Now you are saying the problem was "temper embrittlement", which has nothing to do with face-hardened armor and nothing to do with anything I argued for or against.

Le sigh. My comment about temper embrittlement was made to CM, not to you. You live in a very self centered world where everything seems to somehow involve you. Again, read what I wrote in this post. I didn't say anything about the Isigny tests.
viewtopic.php?p=2191561#p2191561

Now, instead you say you are agreeing with critical mass's statement, which must mean you actually agree with "I remain sceptical that ANY FH ever was used in [the Panther]"?

Again, more of the same crap. I wasn't agreeing with CM about the liklihood of face hardened armor on the Isigny tank. I was agreeing with him about the proliferation of temper embrittlement. Remember the part where I said: ''Exactly. It was widely known that the Germans were struggling to maintain quality control on their plates by 1944.'' That was addressed to CM, not you, Richard.

So what then was the point of your original post disagreeing with me?

I already explained the point of my comment. ''I do not claim as an undisputed fact that the tank labelled as No. 1 had face hardened armor. I'm saying that it is a possibility that was dismissed too quickly, without adequate discussion.''

[Avalancheon]

I would be interested to know what specifications are behind. MQ IT80D plate, and how exactly it differs from other IT80.
The hardness of german plate varied with section thickness and application type (mine protective bottom plate beeing rather soft on purpose, turret side walls harder than other)

Didn't we already discuss some of these specifications in another thread?

viewtopic.php?p=2178879#p2178879

We know the alloy composition and hardness of MQ plates, so what else were you looking to find out?

[Richard Anderson]

You have a bad memory and get confused easily. Talking with someone who constantly misunderstands and mixes up everything is tiresome. Theres no point getting butthurt about it.

Oh, so you did miss it. I agree, you shouldn't get butthurt about it.

Yes, you are getting confused. You try to draw a link between what I said to CM, and what I said to you. The two subjects I spoke of are unrelated.
The problems with temper embrittlement are a distinct topic in themselves. I was discussing it in isolation, not about how it may have related to the Isigny tests.

Er, no, cut the bullshit. You declared "Don't be too quick to dismiss this. We haven't adequately explored all the possible explanations" and then trotted out C.G. Erickson's claim that the Isigny Panther was an Ausführung A somehow manufactured with a face-hardened plate. Now you are saying the problem was "temper embrittlement", which has nothing to do with face-hardened armor and nothing to do with anything I argued for or against.

Now you're trotting out some bafflegab in order to back yourself away from a statement you clearly made.

I already explained the point of my comment. ''I do not claim as an undisputed fact that the tank labelled as No. 1 had face hardened armor. I'm saying that it is a possibility that was dismissed too quickly, without adequate discussion.''

Very good waffle. You should consider running for POTUS. Anyway, it wasn't "dismissed too quickly" or "without adequate discussion". You raised the issue, I responded, end of story...unless you want to continue to pretend that the Isigny Panther was an Ausführung A somehow manufactured with a face-hardened plate.

[Richard Anderson]

Another thing worth repeating...

Okay.

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.' The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Wow. Deep. Did you hear that in philosophy or history class?

The British already had your "oh shit" moment ... when they didn't notice the Germans were using face hardened armor on the Panzers in the desert.

Actually that was a separate "oh shit" moment...sort of, given there is little evidence they believed the Germans were not using face-hardened armor, the tests simply confirmed that. The tests of Panzer III captured (IIRC) in CRUSADER confirmed that, but Urmel likely has more to say on that...if he wishes to tiptoe into this shitstorm.

Units did have field test kits for such occasions...

They did? What units? What "field test kits"? The tests I am aware of were done by British Army Ordnance in the Delta. Whether they used a "field test kit" or something else is an interesting question.

I would think that in Jolly Old England's test facility they might have some better kit...they did have a nice new Panzer delivered to them. Were the US guys allowed to come over and futz with it?

It's actually unclear which Panther the Jolly Old England Test Facility worked with, the one captured by the Soviets at Kursk and shipped to JOETF in the spring of 1943 or the one captured at Anzio from I./Panzerregiment 4. by VI Corps at the end of FISCHFANG on or about 3 March 1944. Insofar as I can tell, they arrived in JOE in late March or early April, were then tested and the final report by the RAOC was completed 30 May 1944 and then republished for dissemination by the ETOUSA AFV&W Section on 5 June 1944. Since they worked together pretty closely I would suppose that American Ordnance officers observed the tests, but I don't imagine they conducted them because...well, they were in Britain and the American Ordnance test facility was a bit further away, at APG.

There appears to be thickness numbers in white...did the Soviets do that? Or did it take months for the Brits to do it?

Good question, since I've never run across the original British test report in the American Ordnance records, but someone else may have. In terms of the urgency in disseminating the findings, the problem I suspect would be whether or not the British and American Ordnance establishments reporting were BIGOTED. I don't imagine they were. Certainly the threat of the Panther did not figure into the American decision to delay the initial deployment of the M4 76mm to the follow-on instead of the assault and I would hesitate to say it did figure into the British decision to deploy Sherman 17-pdr, given its initial task was as a "CB" on LCT(A) rather than as a Panther killer.

[Yoozername]

I would say they tested this one. They have removed the main gun, and apparently put weights on the vehicle to simulate it.

[Avalancheon]

You have a bad memory and get confused easily. Talking with someone who constantly misunderstands and mixes up everything is tiresome. Theres no point getting butthurt about it.

Oh, so you did miss it. I agree, you shouldn't get butthurt about it.

I think you're past being butthurt. You are in need of a full on proctological exam.

Again, you are mixing up things that I said to CM with things I said to you. Your embarrassing histrionics could have been avoided if you simply read my latest response to you in its entirety, rather than working yourself up into an angry huff. But not to worry, I will show you exactly where you jumped the shark and got everything mixed up.


This is the first exchange, where you inserted yourself into the discussion between CM and I.

Exactly. It was widely known that the Germans were struggling to maintain quality control on their plates by 1944.

Sorry, but now I'm getting confused?

Are you agreeing with the C. Erickson that said that the Panther tested at Isigny was an Ausführung A with face-hardened glacis or the C. Erickson I remember that argued, vociferously, for years on TankNet that German quality control of their plates WAS maintained until the end of the war?

And are you arguing that the results at Isigny reflected a face-hardened glacis or the German's struggle to maintain QC?

Or all of the above?

This is the second exchange, where I told you that you are conflating two separate discussions.

You mix apples and oranges. I was agreeing with CMs statement that brittle armor plates were caused by the method of heat treatment the Germans used in 1944 onward. Some of the plates suffered from temper embrittlement which gave them reduced protection. This was a historical consensus since about the 80s, and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

Huh? Yeah. someone is really getting confused. You declared "Don't be too quick to dismiss this. We haven't adequately explored all the possible explanations" and then trotted out C.G. Erickson's claim that the Isigny Panther was an Ausführung A somehow manufactured with a face-hardened plate. Now you are saying the problem was "temper embrittlement", which has nothing to do with face-hardened armor and nothing to do with anything I argued for or against.

Now, instead you say you are agreeing with critical mass's statement, which must mean you actually agree with "I remain sceptical that ANY FH ever was used in [the Panther]"?

So what then was the point of your original post disagreeing with me?

I do not claim as an undisputed fact that the tank labelled as No. 1 had face hardened armor. I'm saying that it is a possibility that was dismissed too quickly, without adequate discussion.

Oh, yeah, okay then.

When I said ''brittle armor plates were caused by the method of heat treatment the Germans used in 1944 onward'', that was a self-contained statement. It was not made in reference to the Isigny tests. This is where your confusion originates.

[Avalancheon]

An addendum:

Now you are saying the problem was "temper embrittlement", which has nothing to do with face-hardened armor and nothing to do with anything I argued for or against.

Now you're trotting out some bafflegab in order to back yourself away from a statement you clearly made.

Show me one single instance where I explicitly stated that the brittleness of the tank labelled as No. 1 in the Isigny tests were the result of temper embrittlement.

This is the leap in logic you're making. I made a general statement about German tank armor suffering from temper embrittlement, and you assume my statement must specifically apply to the Isigny tests.

[Yoozername]

Jentz claims...

2.31 ARMOR PROTECTION

There was still concern that the Panther did not possess suf-
ficient armor protection against the anti-tank weapons that it
would encounter on the Eastern Front in 1943. On 17 De-
cember 1942, Hauptdienstleiter Saur stated that two of the
first Panthers were to be outfitted with 30 or 50 mm spaced
armor plates. On 3 January 1943, it was reported that at-
tempts to fasten additional armor plates onto the current Pan-
ther design presented extraordinary technical difficulties.
Therefore. Hitler agreed to the proposal that the Panther was
to be converted to a new model [later known as the Panther
II) with 100 mm frontal and 60 mm side armor. In the interim,
until Panthers with thicker armor were produced, the current
model was to be sent into action.

On 30 March 1943, the requirement for face hardening
the glacis plate was deleted Based on the backlog of precut,
heat treated and welded components, completed Panthers
without face hardened glacis plates would have first appeared
in August 1943

[Yoozername]

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/10/02/f ... ther-tank/

Seems the Brits were more preoccupied with driveability trials.

[EKB]

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement about "losses" that has no relevance to engine trouble or mechanical failure. Number of vehicles written off during transit has no bearing on number of road breakdowns. A bad engine, transmission, or other parts were usually repaired or replaced.

You obviously do not under stand what your reading, I'll leave it at that !!

Du siehst den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht.