Are Shermans THAT bad?

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

522 for June and July, perfectly believable. 665 for August, not remotely all Normandy. Very generous to award even half to that, giving 850. September, just insane - I can only assume he tossed it in to get a US loss figure comparable to the British one.

Oh ok then Mr 'USA is best' let us use the June figures only

US = 213

UK = 146..........

err I mean let us use the figures to July

US = 522

UK = 377..........

oh I mean use the figures to August

US = 1187

UK = 1211

See, I told you MK was sly. He uses the early figures to hide the enormous number of UK tank losses and the really low US losses.

How could you not realise that losing 24 extra tanks is a good example how the UK was 'stuffed' and the USA triumphed in all tank v tank actions.

One more example of Jasons thorough exposure of my deception:

Originally posted by JasonC:

His next (table)is for 20 August and totals 1014, includes TDs (though the number is quite low, order 50), includes 200 light tanks - and now the time and theater includes 5 days of the landing in southern France, plus 3rd Army taking Britanny, etc. 800 is an upper bound, 500 is more realistic for US mediums lost in Normandy, through the end of Mortain.

Well no actualy. There are no tanks from Dragoon included here.

The 786 total are all 1st/3rd Army tanks. Have another shot.

By the way Normandy is always assumed to be up to the end of the Falaise pocket. You have other parameters I believe?

Originally posted by JasonC:

Second point - US tanks include Stuarts, German tanks figures do not include their own light armor.

And the number of German 'light Armour' in Normandy(or Brittany, Mortain, Lorraine ect) is.................

Originally posted by JasonC:

"OR type" simply means operations researchers

I am sorry my 'joke' was taken as a request for clarification..................

[JasonC]

I said the US outscore the Germans rather than vice versa, and they did. As for the Brits, they famously drove straight through Villiers-Bocage and on to Paris. No wait, they famously drove right past "Barkman's corner" and on to Paris. No wait, they famously drove right over the 88 lined ridges outside Caen in Goodwood and on to Paris. No wait...

We'd still be waiting.

[JasonC]

On German light armor in Normandy, they had -

18 companies Panzer Spiel

14 companies Panzer Pz Gdr

20 companies Panzer Aufklarung

10 companies Panzer heavy weapons

10 companies Panzer pioneer

- making 72 companies light armor.

plus 120 Bison/Grille, 360 Hummel/Wespe SPA, etc. 21 PD had over 50 SP guns on various French chassis meant for direct fire, another 36 SPA, and 40 Somua.

SPW accounting is spotty. I find strength returns for 5 of the 10 mobile divisions totaling 1773 SPWs. Since one of them is Lehr which was nearly 700 of the total, while the standard is more like 250, the overall total will not reach twice that, so a reasonable estimate for the full force is ~3000 SPWs. PSWs are not included in that total.

One can therefore estimate that there were approximately 2 items of light armor for each full AFV sent to Normandy, divided roughly 0.25 SPA, 0.25 PSW, 1.5 SPW.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I do not believe the 500 figure for German tanks lost June and July. I consider it hogwash, because they were reduced to ~300 runners in theater by August 13.

And that is your problem. You have this 'theory'. For it to work you MUST discredit the early June/July figures. Even you realise the very high losses you want for early August

are simply too high to be credible. Thus you have to get more German losses into June/July.

Sorry Jason but you are sunk. This is the full and total write off loss for June/July:

June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224

July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288

That is a total of around 500.

Are you saying the figures are deliberately falsified? And if so by whom?

Originally posted by JasonC:

Losses they actually incurred that early and in Normandy, are not acknowledged until long after the battle.

Evidence for this lunacy?

Originally posted by JasonC:

You have already acknowledged that the German loss figures are inaccurate as indicators of the *time* of loss.

I suppose you missed the sentence 'German reporting broke down in the first weeks of AUGUST. June and July are not AUGUST.

Originally posted by JasonC:

So, reason - you cannot rely on an indicator of time of loss you yourself regard as inaccurate, to conclude German losses in Normandy were only 500.

This is why I never use AUGUST figures and have to rely on the re-calculations in September.

Originally posted by JasonC:

I have allowed a very generous range of 500 to 850, the latter to include Stuarts etc.

Its called 'guessing'. Hoping something is true does not make it true.

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for "and M10s", your own source gives M10 losses at only around 50, so it is immaterial. German StuG losses were not a mere 50, since they lost nearly everything sent and sent hundreds.

TANK losses remember. Tanks, tanks,tanks.......

Originally posted by JasonC:

I have no objection to including Stuarts if you like, or M8 armored cars if you like. I'd just also want to include German light armor if you want an overall armored vehicle accounting instead of a real AFV accounting. I don't include Somuas or PSWs etc.

Tanks Jason, tanks.............

Originally posted by JasonC:

And I have identified German losses of around 900 AFVs in units facing US forces in Normandy, by the standard "permanently left operational status".

Quite a novel approach.I wish you luck in your crusade to apply this new way of looking at losses to the wider research community.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Ergo, the Germans did not outscore the US in Normandy.

No, of course they didn't. US forces always won.

Originally posted by JasonC:

I've never cited any wargame site in any of it. The gerob website is originally from Z, and has nothing to do with any wargame. It relays concisely the actual strength returns for all the involved armor formations, some daily some a bit more spotty, but all quite sufficient to establish the reduction in panzers left alive by early August, which your own figures are not.

I do not need the site. I have the book. Seeing as you set such great store by this book (a Zetterling acolyte perhaps?)Maybe a quote from page 82 might give you food for thought:

"The Germans lost a total of 2366 tanks and 1684 assault guns in the period from June 1st to August 31st on all fronts. How many of these were lost in Normandy is impossible to tell. Even though many tank units had perhaps less than 10% of their original tanks still OPERATIONAL at the end of the battle of Falaise, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REST HAD BEEN LOST."

No one denies the totality of the German losses but to try and skew it all to fit your belief in US invincibility destroys your credibility.

You believe the June and July loss figures are 'hogwash'. Perhaps some proof might help you convince us everyone is out of step but you?

[JasonC]

There is no real mystery here, in the effect of TWO centric accounting. It is a known source of revisionist bias, exploited by Z in his book on Kursk and long since exposed by Glantz's rebuttal in terms of delta operational figures. The same tactic of ignoring losses not yet written off, extending the period or frontage to add additional causes of loss to the other side, pretending all AFVs carried on the books are alive and well, etc, was used by Z to pretend the Germans won Kursk. No difference.

The OR response is also the same - focus on delta operational in unit by unit returns, revealing that the German assault units were ground down to half to a quarter their initial strength by the time they had to call it off, and faced remaining odds of 2-3 to 1 on the shrinking frontage they were still trying to attack. No invulnerability and no remaining odds equals had to give up.

In the case of Normandy, the revisionist nonsense approach pretends the Germans lost nothing until the breakout, which occurred for mysterious reasons or is blamed on the absent Luftwaffe, after which the German tank fleet was "adandoned by crew" for no reason, thus disappearing without ever actually dying. Which is nonsense. If the fleet sent in June were still alive at the end of July, the Allies would not have broken out. It wasn't. Armor odds in theater hit 5 to 1 before the breakout and allowed it to occur, and 10 to 1 during it as the remaining German fleet evaporated.

Losses *after* that are all allied to nothing. There is no German fleet left to take any losses. There is still a very large allied one that takes ordinary attrition crossing France and fighting infantry PAK mines, etc.

If you focus on the Bulge you will find a quite similar story. Same if you focus on Lorraine. When the Germans had any armor at all in theater, it traded off at 1 to 1 rates. When they did not, Allies lost less per unit time but lost something vs. nothing. The difference in overall loss rates for the whole war thus comes up modestly in the German favor, without ever being appreciably above unity in the direct armor vs. armor periods.

This is in decided contrast to the east, where the Germans routinely scored 2-3 to 1 and sometimes hit 5 to 1.

If you want to maintain the Brits had the same record as the US in that respect, I am open to the argument. I tend to doubt it, but full enough analysis might persuade me of the thesis. That the Russians did not achieve it I am certain, and that the US did achieve it I am fairly certain, and all the evidence you or anyone else has ever presented do not even begin to persuade me otherwise.

[JasonC]

mk - they are deliberately falsified by Z in hsi usual way, pretending nothing is lost until a QM in Germany crosses it off his account books. I already explained that by the time of the breakout, German runners are under 800, which is down 1400 not down 500. By August 13 they are down to 300, which is down 1900 not down 500. Same game, same deliberate stupidity and preying on the ignorance of others, same revisionist nonsense thesis. Look at the returns on operationals, that is all you have to do.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

No wait, they famously drove right past "Barkman's corner" and on to Paris.

Classic case of shooting yourself in the foot Jason?

Normaly I would not dream of using a website but...........

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen5.htm

"In early July of 1944, Das Reich was moved to Saint Lo to halt the advance of the US Army's 9th and 30th Infantry Divisions and the 3rd Armored Division. On July 8th, Barkmann's Kompanie was a spearhead of Regiment's attack on the advancing American units. On this day, Ernst Barkmann knocked out his first Allied Sherman tank near St.Lo. On July 12th, he destroyed two more Shermans while disabling the third one. During that engagement Barkmann moved his camouflaged Panther to ambush position and awaited for more Allied armor, knocking out three Shermans. After that Ernst Barkmann's tank was hit by an anti-tank gun which caused fire. He decided to abandon his burning Panther and along with his crew he quickly put out the fire. After that engagement his Panther ended up in the workshop for repairs. After a day of rest, in morning of July 14th, Barkmann was ordered to recover four Panthers that had been cut off behind enemy lines. He succeeded in his task and added three more Shermans to his score. On the same day at noon, Ernst Barkmann was ordered by the Regimental Commander SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Tychsen to recover wounded German soldiers from their American captors. Once again he succeeded and in the evening his own Panther was returned to him from the workshop. On July 26th, Barkmann's Panther suffered from engine problem and was sent to field workshop.When mechanics were working on it, field workshop was attacked by Allied fighter-bombers and Barkmann's Panther was hit in the engine compartment. By the dawn of July 27th, his Panther was repaired but he was cut off from the rest of the Kompanie and was on his way to rejoin it. On his way back, near the village of Le Lorey, Barkmann was stopped by the retreating German infantrymen who reported that Americans were closing in. Ernst Barkmann decided to send two of his men to verify that report. They soon returned with news of American column made up of some 15 Shermans and other vehicles approaching. Then Barkmann moved his tank up the road to the crossroad where he positioned his Panther in the surrounding oak trees, awaiting the enemy. When the American column approached, Ernst Barkmann opened fire, knocking out two leading tanks and then tanker truck.Two Shermans tried to go around burning wreckage that blocked the road and one of them was knocked out followed by the other one.In the response, Americans retreated and called up the tactical fighter support and Barkmann's Panther was damaged and some of the crew members were wounded. Using the element of suprise two Shermans attacked "wounded" Panther but were also knocked out.Barkmann and his crew repaired their Panther and knocked out single Sherman while leaving.His driver managed to moved their damaged Panther to the safety of nearby village of Neufbourg. During that brave engagement often called "Barkmann's Corner", Ernst Barkmann destroyed approximately nine Sherman tanks and many other various vehicles."

What have UK forces got to do with Barkmann?

[Michael Dorosh]

dbl post

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

mk - they are deliberately falsified by Z in hsi usual way, pretending nothing is lost until a QM in Germany crosses it off his account books. I already explained that by the time of the breakout, German runners are under 800, which is down 1400 not down 500. By August 13 they are down to 300, which is down 1900 not down 500. Same game, same deliberate stupidity and preying on the ignorance of others, same revisionist nonsense thesis. Look at the returns on operationals, that is all you have to do.

'Revisionists'? You seem happy to use Zetterling's data when it suits you. Now you say he is a revisionist!

Perhaps you might like some information on German reporting practise. German tanks were not written off in Germany but by the Unit in the field. US practise was as you describe but not German.

This is Rich explaining things to me a few years back:

"Sorry Michael, but I think you may be a little too fixated on the matter of dates. I have found in an extensive review of the Panzerlage for AOK 10 and AOK 14 in Italy, that many of the daily totals as found in unit monthly Meldungen may actually date from daily reports made to army up to three days prior to the report date on the Meldung itself. In other words, the date in a report is the record date, not neccessarily the date on which that strength and loss data were valid, unless a specific reporting date and time is given. So it is quite conceivable that 5 losses were incurred as you say in the period from 27 to 30 June, but that the loss of the fifth wasn't recorded until 1, 2, 3, or even 4 July. We do know that 101 recorded 30 onhand on 6 July, a decrease of 15, and recorded losing 15 by 5 July, so where is the problem?

Some further musings - hopefully of interest and not straying too far from the subject. In Italy it was customary to file operational status in the daily Morgenmeldung and a complete Ist report, including onhand, operational, short and long-term repair, every three to four days. I would assume, given the systematic nature of the German General Staff, that similar practices were in place in OB-West. Furthermore, the two reports had slightly different purposes, the daily report was intended for the army commander and his Ia, for planning purposes, whereas the second was mostly the concern of the Qu., for losgistical purposes.

However, part of the problem with SS 101 is that in Normandy the reports that are extant are mostly the daily operational records. The more extensive Ist reports are mostly missing, as are most of the loss reports except for the cummulative totals. This the ongoing arguments over strengths and losses, but on the other hand, if they weren't fragmentary what would we have to ramble on about?"

[Michael Dorosh]

Michael Kenny fails to realize there are two different definitions of the Battle of Normandy.

By the way Normandy is always assumed to be up to the end of the Falaise pocket. You have other parameters I believe?

This is incorrect. The British and Canadian official histories describe Normandy as lasting until the Seine is reached at the end of August (in other words, at the end of the Falaise Pocket battle, as you indicate). However, the US official history ends the Battle of Normandy on 25 July, or in other words, when COBRA starts. The period of 25 July to the end of August is referred to as the breakout period and not part of the Battle of Normandy proper. You should probably ask JasonC which definition he is using, since it would appear you're both using different definitions.

This became an issue during the editing of the Wikipedia article on the Battle of Normandy. In any event, you are wrong that Normandy "always" refers to events to the end of August. In the US, in fact, this seems to be never the case.

FWIW, JasonC is American.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[QB] Michael Kenny fails to realize there are two different definitions of the Battle of Normandy.

No he don't!

Having been involved in many such spats over the years I am well aware of the differing dates/areas for 'Normandy'.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[QB] Michael Kenny fails to realize there are two different definitions of the Battle of Normandy.

No he don't!

Having been involved in many such spats over the years I am well aware of the differing dates/areas for 'Normandy'. </font>

[JasonC]

Wonderful, I stand corrected. The hottest Panther in Normandy once KOed 9 US Shermans on its best day. Clearly the Germans won and are still there.

A little background for those who have not followed this whole subject over the past several years.

I know that attrition thinking is correct and that the prejudice against it is an academic cult with no clothes on. So I am always looking to analyze battles in loss terms and moving strength ratios etc. I believed and still do that the Germans made all kinds of errors in WW II by pitting stocks against flows and expecting it to work.

I looked at Normandy as one example of this. My initial thesis was that the Germans did achieve the sorts of loss ratios frequently claimed for them, but were ground down anyway, and once driven low enough could not hold etc. I was interested in finding the rate of replacement they would have had to direct at Normandy to hold there.

Doing so I rapidly found the evaporating German armor. They were also needlessly running out of front line infantry - needlessly when you consider their overall manpower reserves and how they managed to stand at the German border etc. I concluded they needed 1000 tanks a month and at least 50,000 trained infantry replacements a month to hold.

Both are figures they could readily reach given their output, but they did not send anything like that scale of replacements, stock vs. flow thinking etc. To be fair, largely because Bagration was destroying AGC and needed all available replacements etc. That relationship is of course why the Russians timed it to coincide with the second front etc.

So, I had the theory already that the US and UK must have worn the Germans down despite the loss ratios the Cooper line implied. I figured US losses alone must have been around 3000 mediums just in Normandy proper, to fit what I was being told. Then I found the actual US losses. And they were a sixth of that. Something was wrong with the conventional picture.

So I looked into it, case by case. I went through every time the US faced meaningful amounts of German armor, MTO and ETO. And I simply never found all the dead US tanks that would be necessary to sustain the Coopereque deathtrap storyline. I looked at losses for the whole war in US tank battalions, I looked at 3rd Army vs. the PBs et al at Arracourt, I looked at Normandy, I looked at Salerno, I looked at the Bulge. And the 3-5 to 1 kill ratios the Germans were supposed to be getting just were not there.

Total losses for the whole war were tiny. Whereas Russian losses are order of magnitude of their production, US losses are order of magnitude less than a tenth of production. The case by case exchange ratios when actually facing German armor are around unity. Frequently this comes about because the German armor is used remarkably poorly, with the same error recurring over and over - ridiculously aggressive tactical employment based on high level directives that are fantasies, meant to sustain hope at the command level rather than to achieve favorable loss ratios operationally.

As for Z's game with TWOs, it was already well known to me from Kursk, which drips with his bias. As soon as I found the operational strength returns it was clear what the game was and what was actually happening. Then I researched Operation Kutuzov and found Z basically just leaves it out, etc. As I have said repeatedly, you can't believe a world Z says, it is all spin, but he gives figures and those are usually enough to correct his deliberately misleading impressions.

[JasonC]

Z is a revisionist pro German shill. But he gives very useful data in the form of contemporary returns from German staff reports. Those returns are the value of his work, his own additions are almost always axe-grinding balderdash.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On German light armor in Normandy, they had -

18 companies Panzer Spiel

14 companies Panzer Pz Gdr

20 companies Panzer Aufklarung

10 companies Panzer heavy weapons

10 companies Panzer pioneer

- making 72 companies light armor.

plus 120 Bison/Grille, 360 Hummel/Wespe SPA, etc. 21 PD had over 50 SP guns on various French chassis meant for direct fire, another 36 SPA, and 40 Somua.

Sorry but they are SP Guns and not tanks. Stop mixing things up. Do we have to include all the US/UK SP guns in the figures as well?

]

[JasonC]

"German tanks were not written off in Germany"

Your own source explains that they simply stop filing the full reports in August. If you took five minutes to actually look at them this would all be obvious. The units have no idea what is happening with repair category vehicles, and they report runners only to the officers that actually need to know what strength they will have tomorrow. After the battle, the rear echelon types want to balance the books, and all the items dropped from the reporting in the chaos of August are finally written off. No, nobody in the field on 13 August was tracking long term repair vs. TWO and taking the time to file reports on when this or that wreck was abandoned, because long term repair was *meaningless* as a category, the instant the front began to move. Even short term repair basically meant "dead", except for a few units on the north flank along the coast.

The standard of loss in these situations is very simple. When does the tank *permanently leave operational status*? That is when it is *lost*. When it is *written off* is *irrelevant*.

[michael kenny]

Why then would you state that the Battle of Normandy "always" refers to events to the end of August? If you are aware, perhaps you momentarily forgot when you made that statement? If not, perhaps you can explain, as I am somewhat confused now.

As stated earlier being a veteran of many such encounters I have had many problems with:

a) The geographic limits of 'Normandy'

The end dates for the 'Normandy' campaign.

c) The treatment of the campaign fron Falaise to the Seine.

I said the elimination of the Falaise pocket(August 21st) as I thought this would be suitably near the differing dates but perhaps I could be wrong?

I did put a question mark at the end of the quote.

[JasonC]

mk - now you are being deliberately stupid. You *asked* me for an accounting of German light armor in Normandy. So I gave you one. Now you object to being given it?

I explained that Stuarts are included in the US loss totals and it causes a category discrepancy - but not one that my thesis turns on, as I conservatively allowed the Stuart losses in my accounting of US losses, compared to German ones. You then made a stink about my quibbling over Stuarts in the totals. I said I was happy to include all light armor or to exclude all light armor, I didn't care which. I did not explicitly say, but implied, that included one side's and not the others would introduce a distortion.

In some cases serious one, where e.g. what is omitted isn't light armor but whole categories of full AFVs e.g. Jagdpanzers, which aren't in your figures. I understand some Panzerwaffe sources like Jentz give only *turreted tanks*, but really, when the Germans are using StuGs and Jagds as major categories of AFVs, one cannot compare all Allied or US AFV losses to only the turreted ones on the German side.

That was the reason the issue *came up*. You then sacrastically asked for an accounting of German light armor in Normandy. I gave one instantly, because you asked. Also because your snide question might have been interpreted by less knowledgable others are either implying (1) that there wasn't much of it or (2) that is was somehow unknowable. Neither is the case.

[ November 05, 2006, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

There can be no confusion about the dates *I* am using as I have given them explicitly. I distinguish pre breakout losses and losses to the end of Mortain, 13 August, and explained that the returns used for the latter endpoint actually span 11-13 August because not all units report every day etc.

There aren't appreciable additional losses after that date in *my* sense of loss - which is for the nth time *permanently left running status* - because by 13 August practically the entire fleet is already lost. All but about 300 in theater and all but about 110 in the units facing the US.

But mk gave figures for the whole theater to the end of September, presumably because even he knows that most of the German tanks written off that month were not lost that month but back in Normandy. But then he wants to compare German losses actually incurred there, to US ones incurred clear to the end of the Arracourt counterattacks.

Why? Because he is spinning like a top, not trying to find out the truth.

I'm through with him. He posted some useful figures along the way, all due credit for that, but the elementary honesty required for a meaningful discussion of these things is not in his nature.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[

Your own source explains that they simply stop filing the full reports in August. If you took five minutes to actually look at them this would all be obvious.

Ok, I am sitting here with the returns for 1st SS in front of me. It says for July 1st they have 101 PzIV but only 30 are ready for action. Does this mean the other 73 (I know it does not tally but that is what using original documents does for you) are written off?

Perhaps Jason, as you know so much about these returns, you could help me. Why does sSS PzAbt 101 list that it has 5 Tigers in the Pz.Abt.Stabs Kompanie on August 1st? As everyone knows there should only be three Tigers in the HQ Company. 5 is distinctly odd. Any help on this site you use as a reference?

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I no longer find your comments reasonable and I'm through with you

This was posted October 20, 2006 08:07 AM

Originally posted by JasonC:

I'm through with him. He posted some useful figures along the way, all due credit for that, but the elementary honesty required for a meaningful discussion of these things is not in his nature

posted posted November 05, 2006 07:47 PM

I suppose when you try and insult someone by citing an action where you mistakenly believe UK forces were bested when it was actualy US forces involved you would prefer to slink away.

Originally posted by JasonC:

mk - now you are being deliberately stupid. You *asked* me for an accounting of German light armor in Normandy. So I gave you one. Now you object to being given it?

No I object when you try and exclude 'Light tanks' because the Germans did not list theirs. I simply asked which German 'light armour' you could include as I know there was very little. Now you want to include SP Artillery! Stugs and tank hunters I would let in because they do not change the picture all that much but if you want Wasps in then you also have to include Priests and M7's on the Allied side. You are losing the plot and are unable to offer anything of substance. Your ramblings about falsified German loss figures and attacks on Zetterlings honesty gave the game away.

[JasonC]

In an excess of charity, I offer the following blindingly obvious propositions to those who might not have thought of them, if there are any such.

A tank that is knocked out of action is to be presumed lost, not to be presumed intact.

A tank that is returned to running status may be regarded as not having been lost.

A tank that someone merely hopes may at some point return to running status, that never does, is lost.

A panzer division consisting entirely of tanks that are not running is not a panzer division.

When a tank *permanently* leaves operational status, it is *lost*.

When someone gives up hope that a wreck will be recovered, nothing happens.

Wishes aren't horses. Tanks "under repair" are tanks only if they stop being under repair at some point and actually fight again. Otherwise, they are not tanks, they are wrecks.

Whatever wrecked a tank is the cause of its loss, if it is never repaired. If it is repaired, the next cause of its leaving operational status is the cause of its loss.

The date of its loss is the date of the last time it was operational.

Tanks that hang around for years like old luggage without ever being operational again, were already lost a long time ago.

Any nation can change when it gives up on its wrecks, without it changing in the slightest the combat effectiveness of its tanks.

No nation can unilaterally decide that its tanks shall live nine lives. If the enemy doesn't cooperate, if will be knocked out and lost, no matter what the accountants say.

Loss of a tank is a military event in the real world, not an accounting event in the mind of the hopeful tank repairman.

When you don't have any operational tanks, you can't keep the non-operational ones either.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] In an excess of charity, I offer the following blindingly obvious propositions......................ramble.........ramble..................ramble...............ramble..........drone.......drone............ any operational tanks, you can't keep the non-operational ones either.

may I remind you of something you said earlier:

Originally posted by JasonC:

I'm through with him.....

not!

Originally posted by JasonC:

So, I had the theory already that the US and UK must have worn the Germans down despite the loss ratios the Cooper line implied. I figured US losses alone must have been around 3000 mediums just in Normandy proper, to fit what I was being told. Then I found the actual US losses. And they were a sixth of that. Something was wrong with the conventional picture.

Yep the US lost 500 tanks in 'Normandy' and another 1000 to 'other causes' up to the end of Sptember!

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for Z's game with TWOs, it was already well known to me from Kursk, which drips with his bias

Perhaps you see too much of yourself in him?

When your whole theory rest on the claim that the German figures for June and July are falsified then either post the research that backs the claim or shut up.

[JasonC]

Name any human being on earth, with an opinion in the matter, who does not think Z is a pro German source.

[JasonC]

False as to material implication, that most of the fleet was still running. All that is needed to correct it is to look at the reported runners for the end of July.

Do you dispute that most of the fleet sent to Normandy was no longer operational on 25 July?

Do you dispute that only a tiny fraction was operational on 13 August?