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

[Yoozername]

How is that relevant, I never asked for a photo of the specific M4 version, how about admitting you were wrong and I never asked for that specific modification. My OP is clear. Sherman without applique armour end of story.

I did wonder how that even cropped up...but, I haven't followed all the thread...just the interesting parts....

Anyway, I believe that the Yugo tests, even if there are no blurry pictures to gape at, can give some idea of what real world testing might have shown. They used the 'Kelly's Heroes' type of shermans I believe, maybe that satisfies the 'Anderson Criteria', and mobius has the data on his website. Basically, they were vulnerable to around 800-900 meters (if I recall)

[Christianmunich]

How is that relevant, I never asked for a photo of the specific M4 version, how about admitting you were wrong and I never asked for that specific modification. My OP is clear. Sherman without applique armour end of story.

I did wonder how that even cropped up...but, I haven't followed all the thread...just the interesting parts....

Anyway, I believe that the Yugo tests, even if there are no blurry pictures to gape at, can give some idea of what real world testing might have shown. They used the 'Kelly's Heroes' type of shermans I believe, maybe that satisfies the 'Anderson Criteria', and mobius has the data on his website. Basically, they were vulnerable to around 800-900 meters (if I recall)

Kenny linked a Reddit thread which included me, to likely get my attention back ( it worked ), there somebody asked for a picutre of a M4A3 with no penetration, none showed up. I claimed the 118mm supposed pzgr39 protection is incorrect calculated because it does not match to empiric evidence. I then followed to AH and the argument about Sherman withstanding hits started again between me and Kenny, he and I both showed pictures of various M4s ( none of those the "ultimate Sherman" ) discussing possible impacts et cetera, I then followed up with an extra thread asking if somebody ever saw a normal Sherman with applique armour withstanding a hit, at no point did I reduce this to M4A3s. Mr Anderson likely read the OP wrong, no idea why he brings up the REddit thread now, I was not the OP of the reddit thread and merely came to the AH because kenny linked my comments here. And again every M4 is fine, there just don't exist such pictures apparently.

Acting like a Sherman getting hit from long range on the glacis is a major unlikely event feels like it is supposed to diminish the impact of not finding such picture. Any Sherman without applique armour is welcome.

[Tom from Cornwall]

So back to my question and your statement that:


"Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!
Do you mean your highlighted column? If you look at line B18 - doesn't that show an "AP Pen"? Line B54 - 4 AP Pen's including one by an 88 mm Flak? B73 HE Hit - where and with what result? Line A69 - another AP Pen? And again for Line A72. At which point I gave up checking... :roll: :roll:

So perhaps not actually a "frequent" result of a non-penetrating hit, even in this small sample. You might want to check how you filtered to get those results.

You also originally stated "non-penetrating hit" before retreating somewhat to "plenty of Sherman out of combat without hits penetrating into the crew compartment" - does your sample tell us if the hit was in the crew or, for example, in the engine compartment?

STRAWMAN:


Hits on the running gear or even glancing blows resulted in KOed tanks. You ask for evidence and got it how about adjusting your opinion?
I asked you to justify your use of the word "frequent" in you statement that "Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!

Tom, non-penetrating hits and hits not penetrating into the crew compartment are the same thing in the study. Both terms are the same. The evidence provided should have satisfied you. That is why non pens are a useless term because it suggest that the armour protected the vehicle, but it often just describes glancing blows or hits into the tracks et cetera.

In regards to the B-18 question, in general, I was pretty thorough, given that this was just added as info without me double checking for errors you might find the occasional mistake, but you can assume the data I give you to be correct.7

Here is the entry for B.18 in question

British sample wrote:
Caught fire immediately after second hit. Details of internal damage Not Known. Crew baled out immediately after shot a).This means the crew abandoned the tank after hit A which was the non pen it, the hit likely immobilized the tank because it hit the sprocket. Either way the first non-pen hit resulted in the KO of the tank and prompted the crew to leave the vehicle.

As you can see in the highlighted column very man non-pens resulted in KO of the tank.

non-penetrating hits and hits not penetrating into the crew compartment are the same thing in the study

Well, that clears that up!

So that is your evidence to justify the statement that:

"Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!

That's not very scientific is it. :roll: :roll:

Regards

Tom

[Christianmunich]

So that is your evidence to justify the statement that:

"Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!

That's not very scientific is it. :roll: :roll:

Regards

Tom

Nearly 25% of the Shermans were ko'ed after a non-penetrating hit. Not sure what you consider "frequently" especially with the "qualifier" even at the beginning of the sentence.

[Tom from Cornwall]

How do you connect these two statements?

Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!

with this one:

Nearly 25% of the Shermans were ko'ed after a non-penetrating hit. Not sure what you consider "frequently" especially with the "qualifier" even at the beginning of the sentence.

Are you saying that "nearly 25%" of Shermans were ko'ed by ONLY a non-penetrating hit?

Regards

Tom

[Christianmunich]

How do you connect these two statements?

Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!

with this one:

Nearly 25% of the Shermans were ko'ed after a non-penetrating hit. Not sure what you consider "frequently" especially with the "qualifier" even at the beginning of the sentence.

Are you saying that "nearly 25%" of Shermans were ko'ed by ONLY a non-penetrating hit?

Regards

Tom

yes. funny isn't it?


edit: I should repeat that I didn't "publish" this "research" like I intended to and I didn't double check all numbers, like I normally would, so maybe there is a mistake here and there but the general numbers should be fine.

[MarkN]

I see Christianmunch is doing his normal trick of posting garbage in order to get a response, and then dancing around the issue by posting yet more garbage.

Here is the initial post that has caused some of this. Note the underlined sentence.

You are correct in your assumption about none penetrating hits that knock out. I have studied the British late war sample in-depth, nearly any hit immediately knocked out a Sherman even glancing blows. My interpretation was that soldiers in general tend to leave the vehicle if under fire and hit which was exacerbated by knowing you were in a zero protection vehicle. The British sample was really quite enlightening to me, nearly any hit and the Sherman was out of combat. This goes so far that sometimes the tank was left before impact or when another tank was hit.

The sample also shows the "shoot until it burns" myth to be false, Shermans in this sample in most cases got a single hit, multiple hits were rare. The Sherman was tank basically offered no protection and hits were the end of the mission for the crew, not all of those were eventually destroyed but Sherman crews remaining in combat after sustaining a hit was really rare. Quite a bummer that no such data exists for German vehicles, I would assume the urge to survive was strong in every soldier of any army but I wonder if knowing your tank is downright garbage in terms of protection changed the behaviour of the occupants. Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently.

This goes along my general claim of ripple effects in performance due to protection. I can only assume how different crews tend to operate in a vehicle that offers some protection versus one which offers none. Most of the evidence for the German side is anecdotal in nature and biased due to sampling very experienced soldiers but you get the feeling that crews in German heavy tanks more often remained combat alert when sustaining a hit.

Very hard to tell but the British late war sample most certainly shows where the rift between empiric evidence ( 10k destroyed Shermans, slow advanced ) and recent opinions ( war winner ) lays.

To repeat: Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently.

This smack of a deliberately provocative statement that Allied Sherman crews lacked a bit of moral fibre. It implies crews were bailing out of serviceable pantsers?

When questionned, he changes the words 100 times and has now settled upon this in a pathetic attempt to squirm his way out:

So that is your evidence to justify the statement that:

"Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!

That's not very scientific is it.

Nearly 25% of the Shermans were ko'ed after a non-penetrating hit. Not sure what you consider "frequently" especially with the "qualifier" even at the beginning of the sentence.

...and...

How do you connect these two statements?

Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently"!

with this one:

Nearly 25% of the Shermans were ko'ed after a non-penetrating hit. Not sure what you consider "frequently" especially with the "qualifier" even at the beginning of the sentence.

Are you saying that "nearly 25%" of Shermans were ko'ed by ONLY a non-penetrating hit?

yes. funny isn't it?

If a pantser has been KO'd on the battlefield, by whatever means, its no use to anybody. It is a lame duck inviting further attention. It would be SOP for crew to bail out. Therefore, I would expect in almost 100% of pantsers KO'd on the battlefield, crew to bail out.

But still we await Christianmunch to address the claim Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently.

Is this in reference to KO'd pantsers or are you suggesting that crews were bailing out of serviceable pantsers?

[Christianmunich]

Mark I already provided the evidence for my claim. Shermans were frequently abandoned after non-penetrating hits. Not sure what about this implies allied soldiers "lacked moral fibre". That is your claim not mine. The Sherman offered no real protection so the first hit is a good sign that the next one will come for you so leaving the tank is a totally rational decision.

Tom also questioned the statement, I have provided the evidence, like I always do. The numbers are pretty clear. If the evidence upsets people who wrongly believed stuff that is not supported by the evidence I can't help it.

[MarkN]

Mark I already provided the evidence for my claim. Shermans were frequently abandoned after non penetrating hits. Not sure what about this implies allied soldiers "lacked moral fibre". The Sherman offered no real protection so the first hit is a good sign that the next one will come for you so leaving the tank is a totally rational decision.

Tom also questioned the statement, I have provided the evidence, like I always do. The numbers are pretty clear.

I'll try again.

You wrote: "Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently."

Are you referring to panters that have been KO'd or pantsers that are serviceable and fully capable of continuing operations?

[Christianmunich]

Mark I already provided the evidence for my claim. Shermans were frequently abandoned after non penetrating hits. Not sure what about this implies allied soldiers "lacked moral fibre". The Sherman offered no real protection so the first hit is a good sign that the next one will come for you so leaving the tank is a totally rational decision.

Tom also questioned the statement, I have provided the evidence, like I always do. The numbers are pretty clear.

I'll try again.

You wrote: "Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently."

Are you referring to panters that have been KO'd or pantsers that are serviceable and fully capable of continuing operations?

A hit that prompts the crew to leave the vehicle is by definition a hit that knocked out the tank. Iam not understanding what you are asking. The sample showed 25 Shermans that were ko'ed by a non-penetrating hit.

[Tom from Cornwall]

A hit that prompts the crew to leave the vehicle is by definition a hit that knocked out the tank.

Unless they got back in and drove off!

I'm pretty sure I've read about cases like that before.

Regards

Tom

[Michael Kenny]

Is this in reference to KO'd pantsers or are you suggesting that crews were bailing out of serviceable pantsers?

I am pretty sure the winners in any competition to find out who ran away and left the most combat-ready tanks would be Germany. Indeed blinkered believers in the Uber-Panzer myth positively revel in recounting tales of Tiger & Panther crews simply upping sticks and running away from their tanks even when there are no Allied tanks within 25 miles. I gather it is seen as a perfectly normal thing for a German tanker to do.

[MarkN]

Mark I already provided the evidence for my claim. Shermans were frequently abandoned after non penetrating hits. Not sure what about this implies allied soldiers "lacked moral fibre". The Sherman offered no real protection so the first hit is a good sign that the next one will come for you so leaving the tank is a totally rational decision.

Tom also questioned the statement, I have provided the evidence, like I always do. The numbers are pretty clear.

I'll try again.

You wrote: "Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently."

Are you referring to panters that have been KO'd or pantsers that are serviceable and fully capable of continuing operations?

A hit that prompts the crew to leave the vehicle is by definition a hit that knocked out the tank. Iam not understanding what you are asking. The sample showed 25 Shermans that were ko'ed by a non-penetrating hit.

I'll try again.

You wrote: "Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently."

Are you referring to crews abandonning fully operational pantsers with superficial damage or are you referring to crews abandonning pantsers that have been KO'd by non-penetrating rounds?

I believe you understand me perfectly. I believe you also know that I am on to your deliberately provocative double entendre and are thus being deliberately evasive.

[MarkN]

The sample showed 25 Shermans that were ko'ed by a non-penetrating hit.

25 Shermans KO'ed by a non-penetrating hit does NOT evidence or prove that "Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently."

The evidence you need to show is how many of those 25 were listed as KO'd because the crew abandonned a fully operation pantser. Can you do that? Or are you just going to keep evading like a silly schoolchild who's been caught out?

[Christianmunich]

You can ask as often as you want Mark the data remains the same 25%ish of tanks were KO'ed by non-penetrating hits that obviously includes the crew at some point leaving their tanks.

Tom also didn't believe the data and has chosen a tank he doubted I then copy pasted the entry showing the first hit did not penetrate the tank but the crew left the tank and the next hit penetrated the tank. The entire sample is online, you can examine it yourself. I have given parts of my research and your post, like in many other threads, don't appear to add much value. I don't understand what you are trying to ask. 25% of Sherman were ko'ed by "nonpens"

The evidence you need to show is how many of those 25 were listed as KO'd because the crew abandonned a fully operation pantser. Can you do that?

Yeah no, I don't. That was not my claim. I said even non-penetrating hits frequently led to the crews abandoning the vehicle. I didn't say all those tanks were "operational" I said non-penetrating hits led to crews abandoning the tank and eventual knock out status of the tank. You added some emotional component to this pretty simple statement.

Please read my comments properly and avoid putting words in my mouth. My statements reflect the data I presented. You misunderstanding the statements is not my fault Mark. As so often...