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: 8254
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 » 26 Feb 2019 19:47

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 19:36


You claimed the glacis was pristine. You can not make any such claim by looking on a picture. Not possible.
I beg to differ.
Its much easier to see if the glacis is undamaged than it is to claim you can tell what manufacturing process was used on the amour plate. Now that is flat-out impossible!

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8254
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 » 26 Feb 2019 19:57

The Panther was taken around the end of June/early July. The first pics of it were taken by Major Sale of 3rd CLY.
Panther 321 . . (10),,.jpg
Panther 321 . . (9),,.jpg
Then it was shipped to Balleroy for the test-shoot
Panther 321 2nd PD before July 10th Balleroy (1).jpg
Panther 321 2nd PD .... ...._.jpg
Panther 321 2nd PD Balleroy(4) ,.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8254
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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:03

Panther 321 2nd PD....... (2) ,.jpg
I was able to identify this previously unconnected photo (below) as the same Panther because of the identical chipping on the front both tanks
Panther 321 2nd PD Balleroy (2)h.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6387
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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:14

Michael Kenny wrote: There seems to be a lot of confusion over the Isigny/Balleroy test. Though the text of these tests is widely available the photos are not. You have to work backwards from the pics and match hits to descriptions. Even now I am not sure which is which so if anyone has the originals with photos it would be a great help.
I do! I do! Well a copy of the original report and photo set along with numbered photo captions.
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

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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:21

So how did you come to the conclusion that this is a pristine glacis?

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

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

Post by Duncan_M » 26 Feb 2019 20:23

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:21
So how did you come to the conclusion that this is a pristine glacis?
Because the tests validated his preconceived notions. When they didn't, it was either already damaged or manufactured improperly.

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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:29

Duncan_M wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:23
Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:21
So how did you come to the conclusion that this is a pristine glacis?
Because the tests validated his preconceived notions. When they didn't, it was either already damaged or manufactured improperly.
Yeah lol. Because the tests can't show two widely different results for two "pristine" plates that were both RHA. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Kenny has shown nothing that tells us this plate was RHA after specification. Could be the worst armour plate ever produced in a German factory and we couldn't tell the difference.

Wait we could tell the difference by seeing a vastly different performance to a prime plate like this at Isigny. Isn't logic fun?


edit: Was there a production variant of the Panther with missing road wheels?

edit2:
Kenny wrote:I was able to identify this previously unconnected photo (below) as the same Panther because of the identical chipping on the front both tanks
Had those already connected, you could have just asked.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8254
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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:39

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:29

Had those already connected, you could have just asked.
You would struggle identifying it as a Panther. In your dreams son, in your dreams.............

Here is your last hilarious identification of the vent on the rear-deck engine hatch on a Tiger as the 'coupla'!!!!
Screenstttthgggot_2fgcfdfd-vert.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 26 Feb 2019 20:47, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:44

So kenny, first of all we all can agree you have shown no evidence that a RHA glacis without issues was used. But let's go to your evidence.

I assume this Panther was hit on the road wheel which knocked out the tank. The hit was directly underneath the glacis. Correct? Or was there no hit? So the glacis which you claim to have been not FHA and without issues lay directly over the hit that knocked out the tank? The hit ( if it was one ) was directed onto the area beneath the glacis. Every penetration there could have resulted in interior damage onto the glacis. Correct?

The damage part ignored I sill don't see any evidence this was a good RHA plate.

edit: My first assumption that the Panther was a 2nd Panzer-Division tank was correct, did the division receive FHA Panthers?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8254
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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:54

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:44


edit: My first assumption that the Panther was a 2nd Panzer-Division tank was correct, did the division receive FHA Panthers?
In case he fools anyone with that claim I better tell you that he got the information about it being Panther 312 from 2 PD from the titles in my images.
If you put the mouse over the pic it gives you name I file it under. As usual he is ripping off my original research..

ScreenshotFTYY_2RT.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

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

Post by Duncan_M » 26 Feb 2019 20:56

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:29
Yeah lol. Because the tests can't show two widely different results for two "pristine" plates that were both RHA. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Kenny has shown nothing that tells us this plate was RHA after specification. Could be the worst armour plate ever produced in a German factory and we couldn't tell the difference.

Wait we could tell the difference by seeing a vastly different performance to a prime plate like this at Isigny. Isn't logic fun?

edit: Was there a production variant of the Panther with missing road wheels?

edit2:
:lol:

You don't understand how "variables" work. Awesome. Your ASSumption is that two similar impromptu field tests of armor and penetration has to be clinically accurate or it nullifies the results (at least the ones you want to nullify). When the results are to your liking, based on your preconceived notions, then all variables were eliminated in that test. When they don't, then suddenly you start making up crap about forging, battle damage, etc. And we all know why you're doing this.

What is funny is that most armor penetration tests, like those done in actual laboratories using the actual scientific method, never have identical results. They have probability of penetration, because some will pen, some will not.

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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:57

Michael Kenny wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:39
Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:29

Had those already connected, you could have just asked.
You would struggle identifying it as a Panther. In your dreams son, in your dreams.............

Here is your last hilarious identification of the vent on the rear-deck engine hatch on a Tiger as the 'coupla'!!!!

Screenstttthgggot_2fgcfdfd-vert.jpg
I see your arguments did not work out again so you start sifting through reddit comments. Haha. Noticed this quite often, once you see people are correct you got through their comment lists, try to claim people have other accounts et cetera. Fine with me I find it funny but try to stick to the topic. People are still waiting for your evidence.

Do you have any actual evidence for your claim this was a prime RHA glacis or are we done here?
In case he fools anyone with that claim I better tell you that he got the information about it being Panther 312 from 2 PD from the titles in my images.
Falls, I was already in the initial thread where this Panther was discussed. Nice try tho haha.

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 » 26 Feb 2019 20:58

Duncan_M wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:56


You don't understand how "variables" work.
Wth? Different variables are not identical tests then, right? Good lord....

The tests weren't supposed to have "different" variables. They hit Panther's glacis with 17pdr sabots, nearly all "variables" should be meaningless. That is the entire point of my argument. If you hit 2 glacis with the same impact velocity projectile angle et cetera both should perform in a rather similar fashion, ignoring some slight differences due to uncontrollable "variables". This did not happen so something was very different between the tests. Well I believe the glacis, aka my initial very first argument. We already see this at Isigny in the very same tests, very different reaction to impact hits. Pretty simply explanation, different performance of the plates, that happens when you grab knocked out tanks and believe it is the same as hitting a fresh tank.

Let us wait how Kenny explained the missing road wheel directly underneath the pristine glacis. Maybe it was no AP projectile after all.

Duncan_M
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: 11 Oct 2018 15:07
Location: USA

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

Post by Duncan_M » 26 Feb 2019 21:08

Christianmunich wrote:
26 Feb 2019 20:58
Wth? Different variables are not identical tests then, right? Good lord....

The tests weren't supposed to have "different" variables. They hit Panther's glacis with 17pdr sabots, nearly all "variables" should be meaningless. That is the entire point of my argument. If you hit 2 glacis with the same impact velocity angle et cetera both should perform in a rather similar fashion, ignoring some slight differences due to uncontrollable "variables". This did not happen so something was very different between the tests. Well I believe the glacis, aka my initial very first argument.
LOL, there is almost no way any two field tests would ever be identical. There is a reason labs exist and joe blow doesn't test things in their backyard. There is a reason the scientific method is used (you ought to google it). Variables aren't just conditions of recovered vehicles used for testing, it a million different things that affect testing. A successful pen vs not can come down to things like weather and barometric pressure (which change velocity), bore wear, propellant charges, subtle variations in angling of rounds, etc. You are as shitty with science as you are with history. This is just embarrassing.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

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

Post by critical mass » 26 Feb 2019 21:46

I have a question:

what is the primary source evidence for FH armor plate ever used in PANTHER glacis or nose plate application? Not secondary sources, primary please.

2nd, when discussing these questions, one needs to guard against the possibility that an RHA glacis (or any other plate) may look externally ok but it could very well be not up to specifications due to defect heat treatment. German late war, chromium-vanadium alloyed plates could be made fully up to specifications in terms of ballistic resistence despite a very lean alloy composition. BUT, this lean alloy required a complex, multi stage, intermittent quench-reheat-temper- cycle, timed to the next second and these lean steels were not very benign to time variances. For the manufacturers, who needed a large volume output of plate it was difficult to guarantee satisfactory plate from a QC point of view because QC tests are destructive per definition. While the specifications eventually even increased, there were more of the molybdenium free plates rejected in QC tests than regular ones, indicating that this may have lead to greater than desired variances in ballistic quality.

----

By mid 1944, the 17pdr APDS was still experimental. This rules out that either PANTHER or TIGER2 could -protectionwise- be laid out in response to the 17pdr firing APDS as this was unknonw in their respective design stage. However, I´d personally agree that the effectivity of APDS against the PANTHER glacis is somewhat borderline effective/marginal. You need to get fairly close, and You need a direct shot with no lateral deviation to the plate. You also need to rely on an APDS with minimal whobble in flight (caused, in part, by subtle, in flight seperation variances of the sabot petals and base plates), and finally, You need to have the APDS functioning on impact without cavitation (this phenomenon, leading to great variance in penetration performance was not fully understood during wartimes).
Consequently, I am also convinced that one might rate the 17pdr gun firing regular AP and APCBC to at best marginal and at worst unable to deal with the glacis, safe remote chances, which jointly come across. The abilities of the 17pdr firing AP and APCBC to deal with the nose plate is marginal, too. However, these, along with APDS will effectively deal other exposed frontal areas (turret/mantlet), and all of the other target aspects under a wide range of conditions.

The presumption that tanks act like kind of dinosaurs -with a thick skin but remote senses, engaging only frontally each other- does not hold true on the battlefield. The tank is just one component of combined arms warfare, and it can´t dominate others if it is to act independent or isolated of them.

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