Discussion in 'The Tanks of World War 2' started by Ricky, Jun 1, 2006.
(And the Jugoslavs were 'Jugs'.)
For us, in Bosnia jugoslavs in general were "dobros". Unless she was a "curva" :grin:
In Kosovo, all were "indigenas" (indigenous), mostly because most weren't.
And in our base we used "tedescos" (half italian, spanish finish) for germans in a derogatory way.
When I was there there was no 'Bosnia' or 'Kosovo', just Jugoslavia; but isn't it nice to get away from the Ronson? :lol:
Yes, a slight topic change is sometimes refreshing :wink:
It is actualy Kurva on Yugoslav spelling (c=k).
So what does 'curva' mean. Or is it not repeatable in a family forum? :wink:
Whell il use ligher expression in english. When u say prostitute it is similar,but stronger word :smok:
Yes, I used spanish adaptation of the word :wink:
in the Trieste area of Italy there was an expression I can not fully remember, but contained the words 'Campana' bells? and 'Putana' prostitute?........it translated as '"Where there's Bells, there's Whores". and there were many bells in Italy.
It is many years since I last read a book by Hassel, but they did strike me as not only being a bloody good read,but also very informative at the same time; indeed, although I don't actually read or refer to them anymore, I do make a point of buying them in charity shopes etc. whenever I see them and to replace those I have lost over the years.
As to the question of the Sherman being called "Tommy Cooker" by anyone in WW2, there can be no doubt that the propensity of Shermans to catch fire was very well know by soldiers of all the fighting armies - thus it follows that a nickname would soon have been found and, if being good enough, would have stuck. In this respect what names were better than either Ronson or Tommy Cooker ?
We are starting to go in circles again...
Was the Sherman any more or less likely to catch fire than any other tank?
Really? I found them inaccurate, immature and quite poorly written and had stopped reading them by the time I was in the second year of secondary school.
And yet again as Ricky has said we find ourselves going round in circles again. Again I will make the point that whenever this has come up no-one has been able to find a reference to a contemporary source. Just because you assume it makes sense doesn't make it true.
Ultimately no-one has yet been able to produce any contemporary evidence or even a reliable source siting contemporary evidence that this nickname existed and was actually used in wartime.
Whilst 80% of hit Shermans were found to 'burn' when hit for the Panther it was 60% of penetrated tanks.
For crew caualties it was found that for an Allied tank on average it was 1 dead and 1 wounded per knocked out tank.
Can't we please bury this Ronson myth?
Where do all you experts get these statistics and percentages from?
Don't answer, don't really want to know!
We used to have a saying, "Bull**** baffles Brains", and you certainly baffle me.
Re: what ever
Simple things like an examination of the knocked out Panthers in Normandy.
Ah, in a book. Must be correct.
Re: what ever
But panthers would be facing different risks than the Shermans? Air attack, lack of manouver when being flanked by an attacking force, vehicles being abandoned by their crew despite being reasonably recoverable and servicable?
Plus Shermans were being hit by bigger rounds such as the German 88 which was presumably more common than the allied 17lb'r.
Shermans also faced bigger and better Inf-AT weapons than the Panthers.
Finally weren't the Germans also more likely to shoot tanks multiple times to ensure total destruction preferably by burning?
Care to explain more fully?
Re: what ever
All these things, plus the fact that the British did not use explosive-filled AP shot, which lessened the chances of fire in penetrated tanks.
Ronson Myth........m kenny..... Not really, I thought it was 'simply' self explanatory.
you read it in a book, so it has to be gospel.