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

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8269
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

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

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Mar 2019 17:26

Christianmunich wrote:
04 Mar 2019 17:08
as shown by my fact-based research that people apparently have a problem with accepting. None of this is my problem,
Actually the Moderator told you that it was your problem and that you had better 'attend to that problem'.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

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

Post by Christianmunich » 04 Mar 2019 17:40

What a moderator here says does not say anything about my evidence. My evidence is clear and fully supports my case. If Mr Thompson disagrees is irrelevant to me. My data and evidence are good and when you guys don't like it this is most certainly not my problem.

You again move away from your false statement. You claimed I had to qualify my claims because they were wrong, I have shown that my "qualifying" statement was exactly the same as my initial statement. You now will just ignore it because you were like so often refuted by a simple copy paste.

If telling Mr Thompson that he got it backwards and he should better focus on bad faith actors that deny undeniable facts results in my banning, so be it. Then you at least get a pause from all the evidence that refutes your arguments. I studied the rules, giving proper arguments based on facts doesn't seem to violate these rules. What violates the rules tho is calling people "trolls" whenever they debunk your incorrect applied data, but that doesn't appear to bother anyone so I am not sure how binding the rules here are and if they are actually the same for everybody. The data from the British late war study shows in a convincing manner how weak Shermans performed under combat conditions, all the data snippets and numbers presented were totally uncontested by other users, we are just back to you claiming I am a liar. Tom serves as a perfect example, first he disputed my claims, then he got the data, then he disputed the data, then he got the copy paste from British survey, then he said he still doesn't believe it then he vanished. Rinse and repeat. I welcome Mr Thompson to read the entire chain of arguments he will surely see how solid my case is and how I always answer any requests with even more solid evidence.

Sometimes feels like arguing the world is a sphere in a flat earth forum. The reactions would be the same, no evidence is ever enough and when it is, just never talk about it again.
Last edited by Christianmunich on 04 Mar 2019 17:56, edited 2 times in total.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

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

Post by Avalancheon » 04 Mar 2019 17:43

I apologise to the forum for bringing up this argument again, but it has to be done. Richard gave yet another dishonest, evasive response to my challenge, so I must confront him.
Richard Anderson wrote:
01 Mar 2019 16:23
Avalancheon wrote:
01 Mar 2019 06:18
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.
Nope.

At 26 Feb 2019, 18:04 PST I posted in reply to christianmunich's reply to critical mass:

"Anyway, all of 79 the Panther ausf A for I./Pz.Regt. 3. were delivered between 27 January and 28 February 1944, so were early 1944 quality and not late-war expedient quality...or manufactured with face-hardened armor."

You then decided to remark at 27 Feb 2019, 06:51 PST that I shouldn't "be too quick to dismiss this. We haven't adequately explored all the possible explanations."

And I responded at 27 Feb 2019, 09:29 PST that C.G. Erickson's notion, which you parroted, was "a rather extended chain of assumptions and coincidence. How much more or less reasonable is it to assume that the "characteristic flaking" identified in old photographs was incorrect?"

I then followed up with a separate question, addressed to you at 27 Feb 2019, 09:41 PST, asking if you were "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?
Yes, and thats exactly the point you jumped the shark. Post #125 was when you started drawing connections that didn't exist, by linking my response to CM with what C. Erickson said on another forum. The only thing in common was the issue of quality control. You were looking for contradictions in my statements, but all you did was muddy the waters and confuse yourself.

viewtopic.php?p=2191601#p2191601
Richard Anderson wrote:
01 Mar 2019 16:23
I then followed up with a separate question, addressed to you at 27 Feb 2019, 09:41 PST, asking if you were "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?"

That simple question, clarifying which position of the "expert" you were quoting was correct, is the apparent source of your butthurt. I suggest you get over it.
Yes, and my answer is the same as what I said in post #130. '''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.''


My statement was not ambiguous. I flatly said that C. Ericksons claim (about German quality control never declining) was wrong. But that response went right over your head. Your crucial mistake was to assume that my statement had something to do with the Isigny tests. Post #132 was when you got confused and accused me of saying something I demonstrably did not. Remember this whopper:
Richard Anderson wrote:
28 Feb 2019 16:19
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]"?
You put words in my mouth and muddied the waters, Richard. So again, I will repeat the challenge I gave to you in post #147: ''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.''
Last edited by Avalancheon on 04 Mar 2019 18:05, edited 1 time in total.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

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

Post by Avalancheon » 04 Mar 2019 18:01

critical mass wrote:
01 Mar 2019 17:31
The 60mm german target RHA plate at 45° is noted in the graphs at 110 kg/mm^2 ± 5 kg/mm^2 tensile strength, that translates to a medium hardness of BHN 330 ± 15. Compared to the relatively soft 240-270BHN US RHA hardness practice, this consititutes for a significant difference in target properties. While one might argue, whether or not the BHN offers more resistence beeing so hard against approx. 0.8 T/D ratio impacts, the key difference here is that the harder material will damage a projectile more completely than softer target material would, particularly at these moderately high obliquities, which homogenious armor works very effectively by base slapping and damaging the projectile as it rotates first away and then into the plate as it digs in deep enough that the back side of the plate starts to experience failure by either plastic deformation or plugging.
Photographs of tests at 45° show the onset of deformation originating in the base of the pzgr39, generally.

Now, lack of damage to the penetrating projectile, caused by softer target materials could very abruptly alter the involved penetration mechanics. If the projectile stays intact, it can penetrate by plastic deformation, or plugging with intact penetrators, both are lower energy penetrations than plugging/ discing with a broken penetrator would be.
Very interesting. The harder German plates were able to break up the 75mm Pzgr. 39 and limit their penetration, while the softer American plates could not. I wouldn't have guessed that a relatively small difference in Brinnel hardness (330 ± 15 BHN German vs 255 ± 15 BHN American) would have such a dramatic effect.
Christianmunich wrote:
01 Mar 2019 17:44
I believe they attempted to convert German hardness to US hardness in regards to the test plates and tried to "calculate" supposed penetration based on their conversion. Going from Ballistics and Gunnery WW2

It goes without saying that the absence of evidence is no clear evidence on its own but I believe that to this day only 2 photos surfaced in contention for the "fabled" Sherman front protection one of which has clear evidence of additional armour still on the front the other being from a fight where photographic and video evidence shows very many vehicles covered in additional "armour".

I may sound like a broken record but people thought it was interesting enough to record Jumbos ( or pseudo jumbos ) which withstood frontal impact somebody would have done the same for one of the so many Shermans. In my opinion, as stated in the OP, the lack of empiric evidence tells me it is likely either the Sherman plate did not perform as well as calculated or the German guns better than calculated in this specific case.

If 750m frontal impacts should be withstood there must have been a considerable amount of hits that fulfil the criteria, especially if we consider the range being reduced by adding vertical angles but nobody recorded such instance?
Yeah, I think there must have been a conversion error somewhere. The Shermans armor definitely wasn't offering the kindof protection that was claimed in World War II Ballistics. Certainly not against the newer stocks of Pzgr. 39 that could survive higher obliquity impacts.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6410
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Mar 2019 18:12

Avalancheon wrote:
04 Mar 2019 17:43
I apologise to the forum for bringing up this argument again, but it has to be done. Richard gave yet another dishonest, evasive response to my challenge, so I must confront him.
Why not? It's what you, your buddy, and the rest of your WoT ilk are good at.
Yes, and thats exactly the point you jumped the shark. Post #125 was when you started drawing connections that didn't exist, by linking my response to CM with what C. Erickson said on another forum. The only thing in common was the issue of quality control. You were looking for contradictions in my statements, but all you did was muddy the waters and confuse yourself.
I did not "link" your response to anything. You attempted to "correct" my error by bringing up C.G. Erickson's theory regarding the "face-hardened" Isigny Panther. I pointed out this was the same C.G. Erickson who long claimed that German armor quality controlled remained excellent until the end of the war and German armor quality never declined.

The logical disconnect that I pointed out and that you still fail to notice, is that you trotted out Erickson as an "expert" when you wanted him to "correct" me by bringing up a "possibility that hadn't been considered". Then you went off on the declining quality of German QC and armor production, simply ignoring that you now were contradicting your "expert" who was quoted in a book. So I asked you a simple question:
...are you arguing that the results at Isigny reflected a face-hardened glacis or the German's struggle to maintain QC?"

That simple question, clarifying which position of the "expert" you were quoting was correct, is the apparent source of your butthurt. I suggest you get over it.
So now we get this gem.
You put words in my mouth and muddied the waters, Richard. So again, I will repeat the challenge I gave to you in post #147: ''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.''
You didn't...so that must mean we are back to you going with Erickson's theory that it was face-hardened...wash, rinse, repeat your circular argument.

Or do you have yet another spurious theory to muddy the waters with?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

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

Post by Avalancheon » 04 Mar 2019 18:29

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Mar 2019 18:12
I did not "link" your response to anything. You attempted to "correct" my error by bringing up C.G. Erickson's theory regarding the "face-hardened" Isigny Panther. I pointed out this was the same C.G. Erickson who long claimed that German armor quality controlled remained excellent until the end of the war and German armor quality never declined.

The logical disconnect that I pointed out and that you still fail to notice, is that you trotted out Erickson as an "expert" when you wanted him to "correct" me by bringing up a "possibility that hadn't been considered". Then you went off on the declining quality of German QC and armor production, simply ignoring that you now were contradicting your "expert" who was quoted in a book. So I asked you a simple question:
...are you arguing that the results at Isigny reflected a face-hardened glacis or the German's struggle to maintain QC?"

That simple question, clarifying which position of the "expert" you were quoting was correct, is the apparent source of your butthurt. I suggest you get over it.
The question of whether or not the Isigny tank had face hardened armor is distinct from the quality control issues of German industry. C. Erickson was in error to claim that they had no such problems. However, his error has no bearing on his claims about the armor composition of the tank labelled as No. 1.
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Mar 2019 18:12
You put words in my mouth and muddied the waters, Richard. So again, I will repeat the challenge I gave to you in post #147: ''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.''
You didn't...so that must mean we are back to you going with Erickson's theory that it was face-hardened...wash, rinse, repeat your circular argument.
Excellent. So we both agree that your statement in Post #132 is a categorical mischaracterization of my position.
Richard Anderson wrote:
28 Feb 2019 16:19
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]"?
Its now been proven: I never said the tank labelled as No. 1 was an example of temper embrittlement.
Last edited by Avalancheon on 04 Mar 2019 19:42, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6410
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Mar 2019 19:03

Avalancheon wrote:
04 Mar 2019 18:29
The question of whether or not the tank labelled as No. 1 had face hardened armor is distinct from the quality control issues of German industry at large. C. Erickson was in error to claim that they had no such problems. However, his error has no bearing on his claims about the armor composition of the Isigny tank.
Okay, so now we are back to you saying Erickson was correct to claim that the Isigny tank used face-hardened armor? :roll: :lol:
Excellent. So we both agree that your statement in Post #132 is a categorical mischaracterization of my position.
My "statement" that you are so butthurt about was simply my restating your argument as I understood it for my clarification...so let's try again, which positions do you hold:

Erickson was correct that the Isigny Panther was face-hardened.
Erickson was not correct that German armor QC and quality declined.
The Isigny Panther exhibited poor German armor QC and quality.
Its now been proven: I never said the tank labelled as No. 1 was an example of temper embrittlement.
No, it's now been proven that you continue to dodge simple, direct questions. If it wasn't "temper embrittlement" are you back to accepting your "experts" opinion that it was face-hardened? In which case you've yet again circularized the argument. :roll: Or do you have yet another possibility?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

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

Post by Avalancheon » 04 Mar 2019 19:38

Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Mar 2019 19:03
Excellent. So we both agree that your statement in Post #132 is a categorical mischaracterization of my position.
My "statement" that you are so butthurt about was simply my restating your argument as I understood it for my clarification...so let's try again, which positions do you hold:

Erickson was correct that the Isigny Panther was face-hardened.
Erickson was not correct that German armor QC and quality declined.
The Isigny Panther exhibited poor German armor QC and quality.
Richard, the entire reason for our dispute was your blatant misrepresentation of my position. I attempted to clarify this several times. Only now have you finally admitted to putting words in my mouth, when you distorted my commentary on temper embrittlement as having some relation to the Isigny tests.

The glaring part where you stated: ''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.'' When in reality, I never said that the Isigny tank was an example of temper embrittlement.
Richard Anderson wrote:
04 Mar 2019 19:03
Its now been proven: I never said the tank labelled as No. 1 was an example of temper embrittlement.
No, it's now been proven that you continue to dodge simple, direct questions. If it wasn't "temper embrittlement" are you back to accepting your "experts" opinion that it was face-hardened? In which case you've yet again circularized the argument. :roll: Or do you have yet another possibility?
The dispute has already been settled, Richard.

I asked you to show one single instance where I explicitly stated that the Isigny tank was an example of temper embrittlement, and you admitted that I hadn't said that. Theres nothing more to argue about.


As for what I actually, genuinely think about the Isigny tests, I don't really have an opinion. I still stand by my original claim that we shouldn't dismiss the possibility of face hardened armor, not without an adequate discussion.

Its a real pity that you and I had to get bogged down into semantics about what I did and did not say in Post #118 and #119. Really took the fun out of the whole experience.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6410
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

Post by Richard Anderson » 04 Mar 2019 20:00

Avalancheon wrote:
04 Mar 2019 19:38
Richard, the entire reason for our dispute was your blatant misrepresentation of my position. I attempted to clarify this several times. Only now have you finally admitted to putting words in my mouth, when you distorted my commentary on temper embrittlement as having some relation to the Isigny tests.
I am not misrepresenting anything. I am trying to clarify your position. Something which you continue to avoid doing. After I challenged you on your "we need to consider" face-hardened according to the expert you trotted out, we were left with the idea of "temper embrittlement", i.e., poor armor quality as expressed in the Isigny report. If not one, then is it the other? Thus, ''Now you are saying the problem was "temper embrittlement", which you are now saying is also not your belief. That is why I asked the simple questions you've avoided:

Erickson was correct that the Isigny Panther was face-hardened?
Erickson was not correct that German armor QC and quality declined?
The Isigny Panther exhibited poor German armor QC and quality?

I've even put question marks after them so its more obvious they are questions.
The glaring part where you stated: ''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.'' When in reality, I never said that the Isigny tank was an example of temper embrittlement.
Then what was it? If it wasn't the face-hardened argument you've now backed away from and it wasn't temper embrittlement, then what was it?
The dispute has already been settled, Richard.
Really? How? If it wasn't "temper embrittlement" are you back to accepting your "experts" opinion that it was face-hardened? In which case you've yet again circularized the argument. :roll: Or do you have yet another possibility?
I asked you to show one single instance where I explicitly stated that the Isigny tank was an example of temper embrittlement, and you admitted that I hadn't said that. Theres nothing more to argue about.
Thank you for clarifying that you did not indeed believe it was temper embrittlement. WTF then were you actually arguing about? :roll: If you don't think it was temper embrittlement and if you simply tossed out your expert opinion that it was face-hardened armor to wind me up, then what do you really think it was?
As for what I actually, genuinely think about the Isigny tests, I don't really have an opinion. I still stand by my original claim that we shouldn't dismiss the possibility of face hardened armor, not without an adequate discussion.
I see, so no opinion, but you'll toss out an alternative and then get butthurt when the "adequate discussion" shoots it down. And yet you still stand by your claim...Christ wept but you do make a good bookend with your buddy.
Its a real pity that you and I had to get bogged down into semantics about what I did and did not say in Post #118 and #119. Really took the fun out of the whole experience.
So sorry that your usual attempts at winding people up resulted in you making an ass of yourself.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3238
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

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

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 04 Mar 2019 20:40

Hi CM,

STRAWMAN ALERT
CM stated that:

Tom serves as a perfect example, first he disputed my claims, then he got the data, then he disputed the data, then he got the copy paste from British survey, then he said he still doesn't believe it then he vanished. Rinse and repeat.
I thank you, I don't think anyone has called me a "perfect example" before. :D :D

First, I actually asked for your evidence to support your statement that:
Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently
You then provided a snapshot of some data from a British report.

STRAWMAN ALERT:
then he disputed the data
Actually, then I disputed your interpretation of the data and your [mis]use of it to buttress an opinion you hold.

UNTRUTH:
then he got the copy paste from British survey
What you actually provided was a mix of what you say is written in the British survey report and some of your words - completely undifferentiated so that it is not possible to know which is which.

STRAWMAN ALERT:
then he said he still doesn't believe it
No, I actually said that in my opinion the mangled evidence that you almost provided does not support your interpretation.

STRAWMAN ALERT:
then he vanished
Then he actually went to sleep and went to work. :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

CM also makes a lot of play over the fact that he provided some detail from the survey to support his argument about the tank at line B18, but I actually asked about more than one tank against which the first hit says "pen".

He then clarified that he was referring to the lines in which the first hits were classified as "non-pen", for which I forgot to thank him. Dear CM, thank you.

Some still seem odd to me, they may support his argument but I can't be sure with the evidence so far provided:

(It may be my reading but for Lines A27; A32; A35; A42; A72 the first hit says "pen" so I don't understand their relevance.

In addition, for A65 and A79 (under hit it just says ??) and for B73 it says HE hit. So I'm not sure about their relevance either.

Do I think all this confusion is CM's fault, no, of course not. The Survey itself didn't help when it stated (in CM's words)that:
Tom, non-penetrating hits and hits not penetrating into the crew compartment are the same thing in the study.


I don't know whether CM then went through to cut out any tanks that suffered hits that penetrated but just not into the crew compartment.

It's also a very small survey and doesn't actually provide anything like enough evidence to support statements like:
Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently
How can we know whether "frequently" is correct? That would need a survey of all British tanks for a period suffering from all non-penetrating hits (and those penetrating but not into the crew compartment or not, depending on how one wanted to define that issue).

I hope that has clarified my position and that I can now disappear again. One does have to sleep and work after all. :thumbsup:

Regards

Tom

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

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

Post by David Thompson » 04 Mar 2019 20:50

This thread has become unproductive and is going no place pleasant, so it's locked.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”