michael kenny
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by michael kenny
-
-
Much like the German Unit histories that say not many tanks were destroyed by the enemy in Normandy!Originally posted by Tero:This would account for the fact the veterans stories and the official statistics speak a very different story about the loss rates of the Western Allied armoured units.
-
It does not hurt at all. If there are those who KNOW the Germans were better (at everything) than the Allies then I am happy for them. The Western figures show only a slight advantage but still we get the bollocks about the 5:1 Panther and 10:1 Tiger advantage (I wonder if the PzIV had say a 2.764891 :1 kill ratio)Counting every Allied damaged tank against German total losses is not a valid comparison.Originally posted by Tero:Does it really hurt so bad even to consider the possibility the Germans might actually have disabled more vehicles than the Western Allies admitted to after the war (in other words the Germand inflicted comparable damages to the Western Allied armies as they did to the Red Army) ?
-
It would be if it was true but all I ever read is 5:1 kill ratios for the uber-panzers. Give me a reference that tabulates all German disabled tanks as well as their total losses. At the same time find me a reference that gives just the Allied total losses for say Goodwood. It would be interesting to see this:Originally posted by Tero:It is really sad if the indoctrination about the Evil Nazi Germans vs Valiant Western Allies is so throrough it penetrates all aspects of the history writing, including how battle statistics should be determined, validated, formulated, calculated and read.
'indoctrination about the Evil Nazi Germans vs Valiant Western Allies (that is)is so throrough it penetrates all aspects of the history writing, including how battle statistics should be determined'
in print. I for one have only seen the 'indoctrination' about multiple kills for the German side but I am always ready to learn.
-
If you look at the damage caused to the Tigers at Kursk then it is indeed fortunate that these 'kills' are not counted.Originally posted by Tero:Mine related losses are not kills in the sense debated here. Mainly because there is in most cases no way to verify how many tanks mines have taken out.
Again the figures are slanted to the German advantage!
So how do you deduct say the British Goodwood mine losses from the total? If the Germans claim 60 and the Allied loss is 45 shot and 15 mine by your method we could say the German shot claim is correct.Originally posted by Tero:Mine related losses are not kills in the sense debated here. Mainly because there is in most cases no way to verify how many tanks mines have taken out
I really can see nothing here other than the usual method of counting every Allied damaged tank as a kill and counting these against German total write offs.
-
but the claim is a damaged tank is a 'kill'..........Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:i wonder how many tanks would be really destroyed by minefields. i think it would be more typical for a tank to be damaged by mines and then be killed by some other weapon system.
-
1/8/44.
192 75mm
51 76mm
15/8/44.
185 75mm
50 76mm
16/8/44.
168 75mm
68 76mm
30/8/44.
164 75mm
65 76mm
No 105mm M4 listed in August for 2nd/3rd AD. All the 105mm Shermans appear to be in the individual Tank Battalions and 4th/5th/6th/7th/French AD's.
-
Perhaps someone could give me the 'kill claim' for German minefields?
I presume that being in defence their minefields would be extensive. They never seem to get any credit and the numbers would have to be deducted from that claimed by the 'sexy' branches of the Army.......
-
There are no 'US Typhoons' and thus they made no claims.
-
There are no 'US Typhoons' and thus they made no claims.
-
Wow! Nearly as good as 2nd TAF at Mortain. On 7//8/44 121 and 124 Wing between them destroyed 84 Panzers and damaged another 54.Originally posted by Hetzer38:Just how successful the Henschel Staffeln had been on 8 July is confirmed by Luftflotte 4's war diary which states that on that day:
"The Panzerjäger were especially successful. Eighty tanks were completely destroyed and a further number damaged."
1st SS reported at 15:20 that fighter bombers had brought the division to a halt near Juvigny.
At 17:40 the Chief of Staff of 7 Armee reported that the assault had been stationary since 13:00 due to 'the employment of fighter bombers by the enemy'. General Speidel, Chief of Staff to both Rommel and Kluge said in his book that the armored operation was completely wrecked 'exclusively by the Allied Air Forces'.
You can find many other accounts where both US and British TAF aircraft reported similar numbers of knocked out tanks. Air Power certainly was an effective tank killer because they tell us so! Who could doubt such claims?
Makes you wonder why the Germans automaticaly applied up to a 50% reduction to all tank kill claims when their 'absolutely genuine confirmed' figures are almost spot on the figure for auctual losses..........................
Where can I find the total of Rudel's claims before the reduction was applied?
Anyone have a source for German pre-reduction claims?
[ March 14, 2007, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]
-
Wow! Nearly as good as 2nd TAF at Mortain. On 7//8/44 121 and 124 Wing between them destroyed 84 Panzers and damaged another 54.Originally posted by Hetzer38:Just how successful the Henschel Staffeln had been on 8 July is confirmed by Luftflotte 4's war diary which states that on that day:
"The Panzerjäger were especially successful. Eighty tanks were completely destroyed and a further number damaged."
1st SS reported at 15:20 that fighter bombers had brought the division to a halt near Juvigny.
At 17:40 the Chief of Staff of 7 Armee reported that the assault had been stationary since 13:00 due to 'the employment of fighter bombers by the enemy'. General Speidel, Chief of Staff to both Rommel and Kluge said in his book that the armored operation was completely wrecked 'exclusively by the Allied Air Forces'.
You can find many other accounts where both US and British TAF aircraft reported similar numbers of knocked out tanks. Air Power certainly was an effective tank killer because they tell us so! Who could doubt such claims?
Makes you wonder why the Germans automaticaly applied up to a 50% reduction to all tank kill claims when their 'absolutely genuine confirmed' figures are almost spot on the figure for auctual losses..........................
Where can I find the total of Rudel's claims before the reduction was applied?
Anyone have a source for German pre-reduction claims?
[ March 14, 2007, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]
-
Using pilots claims we can say they did as well as Allied TAF pilots in France.
-
Using pilots claims we can say they did as well as Allied TAF pilots in France.
-
I will try again.
You have a figure for Aug 5th of 764 Mediums in service.
The figure I get by adding up all the units listed under 1st Army on August 5th is 1166.
The list for the tank status of 1st Army for 12/8/44 states 2084 mediums.
Reserves are given as 753 on 6/6/44.
177 on 12/8/44
116 on 14/8/44
Clearly then there is some confusion as to what exactly the status of 1st Army on this date.
Yes and you only partialy quote the figures.Originally posted by Tero:The figures I have used are from the list which gives the reported operational (serviceable) vehicles. The "on hand" figure I have lists the entire number of M4's in the entire ETO as having been 2093 between June 20th and July 20th ( 121 losses reported ) and 2557 between July 20th and August 20th (557 losses reported).
The Units all list the tanks in repair and they do not have as many listed as you claim were damaged.
Wrong. The Unit tables give all those tanks in repair. I used the in service figures not the total strength figures.Originally posted by Tero:The thing is your numbers do not indicate how many new vehicles were delivered to the units as the number only gives the total number of vehicles in the roster irrespective of their operational status.Reserves:
17/5/44 530
12/8/44 177
14/8/44 116
Ordnance reports on 16/8/44 719 M4 as total losses.
They have been looked at in detail and we are both using the work of Rich Anderson. However I have a more complete list of sub Units and there is simply no 'mising M4's. You want it to be so because you believe the German propogandaOriginally posted by Tero:I trust the figure for written off figure is totally accurate. The total number of KO'd vehicles is not deliberately hidden. The historians have looked at these records. There just has not been any call for to look at the figures this way.
The flaw is you have no evidence that the dip in 1st Army numbers (in SOME records) is anything to do with tanks being disabled.Originally posted by Tero: Since were are debating kill claims then the total number of knocked out and not just the number of written off vehicles must be determined.
Where is the evidence thatOriginally posted by Tero:If the total number of KO'd vehicles is not accurate then there really in no base for calculating how much the Germans overclaimed.a) the claimed missing tanks were knocked out?
The numbers for the 'in repair tanks' is wrong. As these tanks were (in your own words) only damaged then they would appear in the repair figures- they do not.
It is not too low.Originally posted by Tero:This because all is based on figure which is too low.You have not shown it to be too low.
How about these figures....
13 August 2084 medium tanks:
1st Army 823 on hand. 34 reserves and 53 in repair.
3rd Army 1261 on hand. 89 reserves.
Now compare this total for 1st/3rd Armies of 2084 mediums with the earlier report of 13 August that gives 1st Army 2084 mediums. There seems to be match!
Some figures are using 3rd Army totals as part of 1st Army strength..........and of course the onlty time there is this problem is when 3rd Army is unleashed. Hmmm......do you think there might be a connection?
Keep going though, you never know you might get the 5:1 ratio one day..........
[ March 11, 2007, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]
-
I have checked the figures for the following Units listed as being in 1st Army on 23/7/44.
Medium tank units only.
2nd AD.
3rd AD.
4th AD.
70th.
709th.
712th.
735th.
737th.
741st.
743rd.
745th.
746th.
747th.
749th.
The total tanks in service:
23/7/44 = 1206.
5/8/44 = 1166.
2nd/3rd/4th AD did not file any figures for the period 24 July to 1st August, maybe they had better things to do.
709,712 have zero totals 23/7-5/8/44.
735,737,746,747 and 749 have zero totals for a number of days between 23/7-5/8/44.
Thus we see no dip in the individual unit start and end figures. The 'missing' mediums can be explained by the gaps in the record and the replaced 75mm M4's.
It is clear that some units counted as being in 1st Army had been moved out. 4th AD can not be in 1st and 3rd Army at the same time so there is some ambiguity there. We would need detailed OOB's so we could sort this out but the suggestion that knocked out tanks were deliberately hidden is without foundation.
-
I know they are. That is what I said at the start.Originally posted by Tero:You do not see the writing on the wall ? If you stick with the written off figure the German kill claims are grossly inflated.
The German figures (as proven in Russia) were inflated.
-
I see. We include every single Allied tank hit as a a kill. However only those German tanks listed as a total loss counts as a kill.
That way we can keep up the fiction of 5 Shermans for every Panther.
I think not. No matter which way you cut it the total of tanks lost in Normandy show that the exchange rate was less than 2:1 in the German favour.
The problem with your claim that US losses were falsified is that this happens at the same time 3rd Army is unleashed,. The total number of medium tanks for ETO stays the same but the Army group totals fluctuate. There is no mention of 'in repair' tanks in the figures and you completely ignore this or say that the damaged ones are kills anyway.
The old M4's went back into the replacement pool. US Sherman tanks were in short supply at the time so I very much doubt damaged tanks would be written off rather than repaired.
Sorry but if you want to continue the fiction of the high kill rates for Germany you would have to show show the total of German damaged and repaired and thus allow 300+ Tiger kills for 120 Tigers!
How about we use the German figures the same way you use the US figures?
sPzAbt 503:
17/7/44 39 tanks operational.
18/7/44 9 tanks operational.
Thus in one day 30 Tigers are kills.
SS 102:
9/7/44 25 Tanks operational.
11/7/44 14 tanks operational.
11 tank kills in 2 days.
SS 101:
16/6/44 15 tanks operational
30 Tank kills in 3 days of combat.
In fact a quick check shows me that SS 101 had 67 Tigers 'killed' up to mid July. It also ceased to exist on 4th July and was showing only one tank on 17th July.
I also thought the Tiger Abteilung had 45 Tigers?
I cant find one that ever had more than 40 in service. Doe's this mean the Germans falsified their returns?
I could do this for all the German Units but the reasoning is absurd. So is yours.
[ March 10, 2007, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]
-
Which also is when 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th AD's (and 2nd French AD) start moving around. 5 Armoured Divisions, do you think there might be a connection?Originally posted by Tero:Mind you: the 1st Army seems to have gotten an influx of M4's during the week August 13th-19th from the previous weeks 580 to 808 while the 3rd Army shows an influx during the week August 12th -18th from the previous weeks 301 to 794.
-
Reduction in 1st Army tank numbers.
22/7/44......1336 M4.....712 M5. (92 written off)
29/7/44.......891 M4.....541 M5. (38 written off)
so we have 532 M4's and 312 M5's that were knocked out and hidden by the US?
This would be a total of 624 M4's and 350 M5's knocked out in 7 days.
I think not. total loss of M4's by 1st Army up to the end of July was 411 and here we are told a further 600 need adding
-
4th AD is included in 1st Army totals for 22/7/44 but was part of 3rd Army in August. That coupled with the switching of 160 old M4's accounts for the bulk(320) of your 'lost' figure.
Add in the tanks in repair and I think we have the solution.
We would also need to know which tank battalions moved from 1st to 3rd.
Unless of course you say the Battalions that show zero tanks during late July were completetly wiped out.......
744 M4's are shown as total losses up to 16/8/44 and some 600 are reported as damaged, repaired and sent back in to action.
[ March 09, 2007, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]
-
The overall number of all M4's in ETO do not drop at all right through the period you give. I can only assume some of the Tank Battalions were transfered out of 1st Army for some of the time because they dissapear of the lists for a week or two. They show zero tanks during the dip period but come back on line in August.
-
Originally posted by Tero:
1st Army strenght reports for three selected weeks show:
75 mm models
Date and days, operational, losses
16-22 Jul 1944,7, 1102, 33
23-29 Jul 1944,7, 748, 79
30Jul-5Aug 1944,7, 656, 68
figures for 76mm models during the same period
168, 0
95, 12
108, 6
Strenght fell by 60 in three weeks but only 18 were reported lost.
During those two first weeks of the period the 1st army reported 124 M4's lost. Yet a total of 427 fell off operational status from July 22nd and July 23rd. From July 29th to July 30th the strenght report show a further drop of 79 vehicles with 74 being reported lost. So, the 1st army lost 198 Shermans but misplaced 414 further vehicles in three weeks. Had this kind of unreported vanishing, ie. gross negligence happened in the Red Army the men responsible would have been shot.
Try this.
from July 21st 160 M4 75mm traded in for 160 M4 76mm.
also try and factor in some M4's in repair. 2nd AD/3rd AD 50+ in repair on August 2nd.
That should do for starters. If I have time later I might go through the individual tank units and give you the weekly losses for every single unit.
-
Originally posted by Tero:
What about the Allied units and their kill claims vis-a-vis handling of damaged enemy vehicles ?
Give me an example.
You lost me there but I presume you are refering to Allied claims being inflated. I have news for you. This is well known and allowed for. The only Unit histories that completely ignore this fact seem to be German.In contrast "Super tank company commander Tom made a valiant effort to break through the enemy defences today. His forces shot up loads of enemy troops and vehicles, including 5 formidable Tiger tanks. The attack failed but the enemy casualties were high. Own losses were 4 tanks. The force was drawn from the frontline for repair and replenishment so it could be deployed again in full strenght in a few days."
Have you ever seen Western Allies keep score on their own vehicles the way the Red Army did. How is it possible the Red Army tallied 1900 combat losses while their write offs were only 300 ? Makes me at least think the Red Army reporting was more honest than the Western Allied.All I can say is you clearly have no understanding of the Allied loss figures. You hint at deception but have nothing at all to support the claim.
I'm sure there are records of Allied recovery and repair effort around but for some reason they are not taken into account when tallying combat losses.Yes they wanted to hide the fact that it took 5 Shermans to destroy every Panther!!!!
Absolute b***locks. You are sure? Why? Oh yes because the super-Tigers each knocked out 10 Shermans.
The actual tank losses for both sides in Normandy were in less than 2:1 in the Germans favour
Which German Unit account includes any of its damaged tanks as a loss?a combat loss counts as a kill even when the vehicle is not a write off. -
And I 'aint really interested in any of your posts.........Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:I wasn't particularly interested in the majority of your post.
Well I do I just didn't give you it.I asked if you had a reference to this supposed bit by Zaloga that you were going on about. It would appear you don't.
Take my comments like they were taken over at Tankers a few years back. Remember me being slapped down told about the scientific method used by the Germans to calculate the enemy losses.......then someone noticed that this 'scientific' method always ended up as EXACTLY half the original total.............!I'll take the rest of your post in that light.
The numbers for the 'in repair tanks' is wrong.
The Bouncing .50 cal - can it kill a tank?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
In an engagement where the overall losses were in the ratio of 2:1 (slightly higher than the actual loss rate for all of Normandy)
Like when Will Fey destroyed 15 Shermans in one engagement?
15 Shermans that no one but he saw destroyed?
15 Shermans from a unit that saw no action that day?
Congratulations! You have been working up to this magic figure for some time and I was wondering how you were going to 'prove' it.
By your method we can 'prove' SS 101 lost 30 Tigers by 16th June, 45 Tigers by 4th July(i.e was wiped out) 67 Tigers by July 17th (wiped out for the second time) and 22 more Tigers by mid August. Is that 99 'killed' Tigers and a Unit wiped out 3 times by September?[ March 23, 2007, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]