michael kenny

The claims made for German tank units are way too high. If you pick out some of the high scorers and show that they did indeed go over the top then it is highly relevant. If the most quoted can be proved to be inflated then the system is shown to be faulty. There should be no debate about this because the Germans themselves knew the claims (in Russia) were inflated. They applied an official reduction because they noticed the mistake. The kill v damaged debate is not really valid. Read any German account by a tank unit and you will notice that they never ever mention damaged tanks as lost yet when writing about Allied Units they include every single possible tank casualty as a confirmed kill: 'Super Panzer leader Hans held up an entire English Division and destroyed 40 tanks. His battered Tiger was towed back to have its turret replaced, tracks mended and engine repaired. His driver and loader were killed but we lost no tanks today.' For far too long we have had to read about double digit kill claims for the Panzers when in fact they did not do as well as they like to think. You can read about the 5 shermans for one Panther tale but when you find the matching figures they do not support the uber-panzer myth. There are dozens on Panzer Unit histories around but not one of them take into account the 50% reduction in kill claims when advancing their claims. They never even mention it.

Then we can say that the 130 odd Tigers in Normandy were 'killed' some 300 times? A damaged tank is not a kill. Wounded is not killed. For Wittmann I am saying that the absolute maximum number of tanks he could have even hit at Villers Bocage was 10-12. It is not even confirmed that it was he who hit all of those 10 as 2 other Tigers were firing at the same Targets. He was cited as destroying 20+ Fey's claim (widely reported in most German accounts) is very odd. The nicest way of putting it is that it is totaly without any verification. The Wittmann kill claims can be compared to the actual losses. Fey's claim is completely without any matching Allied accounts In the East(where records are scarce) multiple scores are routinely claimed. In the West (where we have Allied loss figures) There are very few such claims. Taken together with their own method of applying a 50% reduction in claims I think we can safely say that German kill claims were inflated.

It was one of 3 examples, 2 of which I presume you accept? I was of course refering to the oft quoted example of Barkmann destroying several Shermans. A damaged tank is not a destroyed one. I am not too well referenced on US losses so did defer to Zaloga's assertion. However I can categorically state that both the Wittmann and Fey claims are grossly inflated. It is striking that the high German kill rates claimed for Russia are not repeated in the West.

No I think that would be Barkmann. Fey had a Tiger.

The above is a typical reply (not intending to start an argument here)in that people 'know' the Germans had a strict verification system. Everyone 'knows' it but no one knows what it was or how it worked! The situation in the East was that the kill claims were so high that an automatic 33% (rising to 50% in 1944) reduction was applied when collating the figures for intelligence use. The Germans did that to their own figures. In Normandy we can check German claims against fairly accurate Allied losses and guess what? No more multiple kills (i.e.kills not claims) by single lone Tigers! Hate to keep repeating this narrow point but Wittmann is by far the single most quoted example of a German tank ace in Normandy and it can be proved that the numbers cited in his award claim for Villers Bocage is at least out by a factor of x2, maybe even more. The second most famous claim is by Will Fey in August when he claimed 15 Shermans in a single engagement. The corresponding War Diary of the engaged Unit shows they were not in action that day! Barkman on 27/7/44 has a high profile as well but a recent reply to me from Steve Zaloga states that the 3rd AD losses that whole day were just 3 Shermans. The Germans overclaimed like everyone else but it seems no one takes this into account when recycling unverified Unit claims as actual confirmed kills.

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesWW2artyleningrad.htm "Many Soviet naval vessels were heavily damaged by the German artillery fire in 1941-1942. The battleship "Marat", which was ostensibly "sunk" by Hans-Ulrich Rudel on September 23, 1941, but soon repaired so that turrets N3 and N4 became active again, was hit by 5 shells on 15.09.1941, piercing the decks and blowing up the engine, on 12.12.1941 it suffered 3 more hits of the 203 mm shells and on 28.12.1941 3 direct hits and several German shells exploding near the battleship. The deck was reinforced by the granite plates of the Neva embankment, and yet the ship was targeted again successfully on 25.10.1942 with 3 305 mm shells, one 203 mm shell on 06.11.1942 and one 203 mm shell on 08.10.1943. The repeatedly battered vessel was decommissioned in 1953."

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesWW2artyleningrad.htm "Many Soviet naval vessels were heavily damaged by the German artillery fire in 1941-1942. The battleship "Marat", which was ostensibly "sunk" by Hans-Ulrich Rudel on September 23, 1941, but soon repaired so that turrets N3 and N4 became active again, was hit by 5 shells on 15.09.1941, piercing the decks and blowing up the engine, on 12.12.1941 it suffered 3 more hits of the 203 mm shells and on 28.12.1941 3 direct hits and several German shells exploding near the battleship. The deck was reinforced by the granite plates of the Neva embankment, and yet the ship was targeted again successfully on 25.10.1942 with 3 305 mm shells, one 203 mm shell on 06.11.1942 and one 203 mm shell on 08.10.1943. The repeatedly battered vessel was decommissioned in 1953."

An old map of Kronstadt but you see its key position. Both Finnish and German forces beseiging Lenningrad were within range of the Marat's guns modern view: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/leningrad_area78.jpg

An old map of Kronstadt but you see its key position. Both Finnish and German forces beseiging Lenningrad were within range of the Marat's guns modern view: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/leningrad_area78.jpg

Well I don't, actually. It is a perfect example of Rudel being credited with the kill when in fact he was but a part of the effort. Rudel may have contributed to the grounding of the Marat but Rudel failed in his aim of eliminating the ship. Sunk, grounded, damaged or submerged makes no difference. The ship remained as an effective means of shelling the Germans. It still performed that task after the claimed 'kill' It would be interesting to find out if the Germans made any effort to further attack the Marat-which would be odd if it was indeed a true sinking.

Well I don't, actually. It is a perfect example of Rudel being credited with the kill when in fact he was but a part of the effort. Rudel may have contributed to the grounding of the Marat but Rudel failed in his aim of eliminating the ship. Sunk, grounded, damaged or submerged makes no difference. The ship remained as an effective means of shelling the Germans. It still performed that task after the claimed 'kill' It would be interesting to find out if the Germans made any effort to further attack the Marat-which would be odd if it was indeed a true sinking.

Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots.

Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots.

Some figures from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=925732&highlight=#925732: "I shall cite still given of book which have recently left in Russia of Alexey Isaev. 1 Ukrainian front from April, 1st till May, 9th, 1945 has lost destroyed and domaged 935 tanks T-34/85. 625 from them - from artillery (289 - destroyed, it it is impossible to restore) 37 - from Faust (12 - destroyed) 62 - from aircraft (27 - destroyed), and a part of tanks - from friendly fire Il-2 It has been lost destroyed and domaged also 89 JS-2 (from Faust - 2), 56 JSU--122/152 (18 - Faust), 231 Su-76 (Faust - 9)." That would give 7% hit by A/C and 3% destroyed bt A/C

Some figures from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=925732&highlight=#925732: "I shall cite still given of book which have recently left in Russia of Alexey Isaev. 1 Ukrainian front from April, 1st till May, 9th, 1945 has lost destroyed and domaged 935 tanks T-34/85. 625 from them - from artillery (289 - destroyed, it it is impossible to restore) 37 - from Faust (12 - destroyed) 62 - from aircraft (27 - destroyed), and a part of tanks - from friendly fire Il-2 It has been lost destroyed and domaged also 89 JS-2 (from Faust - 2), 56 JSU--122/152 (18 - Faust), 231 Su-76 (Faust - 9)." That would give 7% hit by A/C and 3% destroyed bt A/C

Some 9000 bombers for the whole war. 2nd TAF losses. June 302 July 219 August 265. A total of 786 to all causes for sure but when you add in 8th AF losses the figure easily rises well over the 1000 mark.

If you can spare the time read more detail here: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000010.html

A stated earlier there was no MG issued to be used on the coupla. One of the co ax MG's was dismounted and used when conditions permitted.

2 more views of the Sherman with the 'split' and one with a turret that went up in the air and came down with its gun barrel in a hatch!

The Sherman should be compared to the tanks in use when it entered service. Then you can plainly see how 'tall' it was. The Tiger and Panther both were considerably heavier and later tanks. The PzIV was slightly bigger than the Pz III

I got my copy from the Fedorowicz book on 10 Panzer Division and it is stated there that they photo must be posed. As we have an earlier pic with the turret door and tool box still in place then it obviously is set up for the camera. If I remember correctly quite a few 'famous'Desert photos were staged for the cameras. The cast hull Sherman photo I posted seems to have 5 penetrations roughly in a line and then an internal explosion split the hull along this line Unfortunately I am not related to the NZ Kennys.

Now if you are interested in penetrations and explosions.............

Better view. It must be the same tank.The damage over the return roller matches as does the rear two road wheels being slightly sunken into the ground. It is the same tank after the tool box is removed and a few more rounds shot into it. [ February 03, 2007, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]