michael kenny

Spot the difference............

That famous picture of the TII with the 'groove' in the glacis has been altered. The original untouched pic is not nearly as dramatic and the hit(if it is such)is barely visible.

Target practise on a nearby hulk?

Best I can give you. Sorry but this time I did not have the time to OCR and format it for here.

Misunderstanding? Well the reading I have done shows me that from a small sample of 50 destroyed Allied tanks surveyed in July 1944: RGd 24: Report No.12. Canadian 2nd Army.Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties 6th June-10th July. 25 were hit x1. 11 were hit x2. 2 were hit x3. 1 was hit x4. 1 was hit x8. The sample gives 64% of kills by one round. If anyone has an OR Survey that gives other results then I would like to see the details. A further 124 tanks were inspected and between them they had 83 hits that failed to penetrate. ------------------------------------------------ For nonenemy losses the figures in ORO T-117 seem rather odd. USA. 14% for Western Europe. (sample 2579) 32% in 1942 N.Africa but 17% in 1943. 19% in Sicily. 38% in Italy 1943 and 25% in 1944. UK. W.Europe 2% (sample 1103) N.Africa 0.1% (sample 1123) Sicily 0 Italy 5.5-3.5% 1943-1944 Canada. W.Europe 22% (sample 473) Scily 20% (4 tanks!) Italy 1943 33%, 1944 50% Now I know you are not a great fan of statistics and I confess neither am I. However they are useful for setting 'limits' on either sides kill claims. indispensable I would say. I am sure that giving a reference is a much better way to aid undestanding .

LINK: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/drea3/drea3.asp The following table from the above seems to show that US and British total losses v repairable is much the same. TOTALS BY THEATER ................sample.....repairable.....%........U/S.............% US: Italy. Gunfire.........32............9............28.1.......23...............71.9 Mine.............24............16..........66.7........8................33.3 Mortar..........1..............0............0.0..........1................100.0 Hollow chg...3..............2............66.7........1................33.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ETO - Gunfire........722...........337........46.7.......385.............53.3 Mine............210...........159........75.7........51..............24.3 Mortar..........7..............7...........100.0.......0................0.0 Hollow chg...152..........105........69.1........47..............30.9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UK:N.Africa- Gunfire.......242............129..........?...........113 Mine...........48..............31...........64.6.......17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Italy- Gunfire..........94.............51.......54.3........43.............45.7 Mine.............42.............30........71.4.......12............28.6 Mortar...........2...............1..........50.0.......1.............50.0 Hollow chg...10............7..........70.0........3.............30.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS BY COUNTRY US: Gunfire.......754............346........45.9.......408..........54.1 Mine...........234............175........74.8.......59...........25.2 Mortar.........8...............1...........87.5........1............12.5 Hollow chg...155..........107........69.0.......48...........31.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UK: Gunfire........528............304.........57.6......224.........42.4 Mine...........208............171.........82.2.......37.........17.3 Mortar.........8...............7.............37.5.......1...........12.5 Hollow chg..45............35............77.8......10..........22.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GRAND TOTALS BY CAUSE Gunfire....1282...........650...........50.7......632......49.3 Mine........442.............346...........78.3......96........21.7 Mortar.......16..............14............87.5......2.........12.5 Hollow chg..200..........142..........71.0......58.......29.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- for a while now I have been using WO/291/1186 'The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII' An OR report from 24/5/50. This gives % personel casualties for various Allied tanks in WWII. It was posted years ago by a J.D.Salt!

Jarrett was a US officer and later curator at APG. http://www.army.mil/CMH/books/wwii/Beachhd_Btlefrnt/ChapterII.html Here he is in 1945 [ January 21, 2007, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

From 13th June up to Falaise there were 126 Tiger I's and 12 Tiger II's in Normandy (total 138) 5 TII's from (fkl)316 briefly came into play near the Seine. (total 143) When the Seine was crossed a further 30 TII's came into action( total 173). At the end of the retreat a small number of Tiger 1's turned up(3 were photographed) that seem to have been ex training vehicles from Mailly le Camp (176+) [ January 19, 2007, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

Not about production at all. It is whether or not you can say everything built on the chassis of a tank is still the tank itself. A Stug.III is not a Pz.III. Equality will do for me!

OK then try: 'The US used M7's that were built on an M3 chassis right throughout the war. Therefore the Grant was still being used up to 1945.' Here is a 'Grant' in April 1945 at Okinawa I see the full total of tanks, SP Artillery, command tanks, flamethrowers ect as 54,500 The number I used was 20,000 +7,800, i.e. 27.800 tanks. 3000 were built prior to WW2. The total of 54,500 does not include some 3000 rebuilds or conversions of earlier obselete types. i.e. the Pz II chassis used for SP Artillery, captured French chassis ect.. ooohh you are a devil! I suppose the puerile name calling helps you avoid the thorny problem about trucks? oh and it is Pz.38(t)......... [ January 07, 2007, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

But you clearly said " The Pz III and Pz IV remained the middle 2/3rds of the production distribution right to the end" Why not say you meant the derivatives on the chassis of the tanks instead of the tanks themselves. As above, the Pz III was discontinued in late '42/start of '43. The Chassis CONTINUED in production. By applying the same logic we can say that US forces were using the Grant M3's to the wars end because the chassis of the early M7 105mm SP was the M3! First you compare a 'fleet' of 3000 instead of a tank park of 5000. Then you try and use the max. tank park figure of 7000 to try and say that supporting such a 'fleet' was no problem. The tank park of 7000 existed for a very short time(3 months) and once the Allied offensives began the German losses were catastrophic. Well the Germans started the invasion of Russia with a shortage of 2700 trucks. By August transport losses began to outrun production. In October losses were 6000, double the production figures of 2752. 110000 trucks were lost Jan-Aug 1944, more than the entire production for 1943. There were 48 Panzer/Panzergrenadier Divisions by the wars end. Tank strengtht were reduced during the war and the 1944 Divisions were rarely fully equiped. The tank park was fairly static throughout the war.

D/P [ January 07, 2007, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

All Pz I,II,38(t) and Pz III tank production was ended late '42. If we are talking about tanks then all types of Pz I to PzIV (and including 35(t)/38(t)) gives a total of 20000. 'Superior' types (I presume Panthers and Tigers?) add up to 7800. Hardly a sixth. Twice as large as....... what? The German tank park was some 5300 at the beginning of Barbarosa. It rose to 6000 by the end of 1942. The Stalingrad losses helped it dip to under 4000 at the start of 1943. The numbers slowly climbed(Feb '44 before it got back to June '41 levels)until it was around 7400 in the spring of 1944. Slipped back to 5000 by October only to rise to 6000 again in January. There were more German tanks available for action in 1945 than in nearly all the previous years of the war. The problem they had was that production was concentrated on major AFV's and they neglected to produce enough spares to sustain the fleet. The major error was the lack of any transport. Even at the start of the war there was not enough wheeled transport to go around. Whilst tank production increased by a factor of 6 motor vehicle production only went up by less than 2. Even that was only for brief periods. A Panzer Division had to rely on horses (about 1000) for some of its supplies. Supplying them was a problem from the start and it got worse as the war progressed.

The engagement is known as Arracourt. I presume it is about the arguments between Blaskowitz and Mantueuffel and the subsequent blame game when the attack failed. Blaskowitz was replaced by Balck but I have seen no reference to a formal reprimand. The original statement so loosely worded that it could be about any number of the Lorraine encounters. Because of this ambiguity my reply is a provisional one and could be altered when more precise information is forthcoming. These 'reckless negative odds' efforts ended Eisenhower's hopes of an early end to the war. German resistance was so strong that The Allies consolidated before continuing the advance. Germany gained another 7 months.

See how this theory was tested at Dupuy http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000015.html

This is not something critical to the debate. What prompted me to show the actual armour thickness on the M4 v M10 was a statement that the TD's were 'heavilly armoured' and 'about as well armoured as a medium tank' That and an assertion that the US lost less tanks than the Germans from Normandy to The Bulge convinced me the poster was not quite as well briefed as he thought he was. When I pointed this out then that is when the roof fell in! The TD concept was not a success for a number of reasons, many of which are laid out in Gabel. The distinction between 'not a successful concept' as opposed to 'not a successful vehicle' seems to confuse many.

I am not trying to assert any superior position and was simply contrasting the broad overview taken by others to my concern with the actual men and machines. I said I was at the sharp end because that is the area I am most concerned with. I was not at the top (broad view) looking down. I was at the bottom (sharp end) looking up. This is also why I noticed the claim that TD's were about as equally armoured as the M4. I know what overmatching is and realise its implications. That will not change the fact that one vehicle had roughly half the hull armour of the other. I also mentioned the lack of an MG and open turret as being a problem but others said it was not a weakness

I was contrasting the 'broad overview' being used by others when I was more interested in dealing with the nitty gritty of the vehicles and their crews i.e. the sharp end. It was done. I agree and I am not a great fan of statistics. However they are useful for setting an upper limit for losses. You then know the rate of overclaiming.

In a nutshell that is where we differ. I am down at the sharp end where it is far from 'irrelevant'. Wouldn't life be boring if we all thought the same way?

Broad themes that assert the armour of an M10 is 'not much less' than a comparable M4 do not seem to be based on reality. Further sweeping statements about multiple kills being racked up by TDs (i.e about half the estimated German losses in The Bulge) confirm the authors lack of an real data for said 'broad claim'. 'like Jon said'............... 'as Jason says'................ 'Kingfish asserted'............ Do you have anything that Dorosh said?

1)Can an allied tank destroyer kill an axis tank? yes 2)Did any allied tank destroyers kill any axis tanks? yes 3)Did any allied tank destroyers score multiple kills over the war? Probably sorry but I can not be absolutely sure. 4)Were allied tank destroyers able to kill axis medium AFVs? yes 5)Were allied tank destroyers able to kill axis heavy AFVs? yes 6)Would you agree that allied tank destroyers were best used as defensive weapons for blunting axis armored spearheads? The question raises issues that can not be answered in a simple yes or no. Obviously in practise they were used far more widely in other roles than as tank killers. The men who had charge of the TD's found these other roles far more useful than the A/T role. Gabel concludes that the lack of any organic Infantry and artillery in the TD Battalions seriously affected their ability to carry out their designed role. The dispersal of individual companies of TD's aslo disrupted their command and supply chain. He cites an instance where the parent Infantry Unit supplied wrong fuel and ammunition to the TD's attached to them. Opinion again so no more silly demands saying 'admit you were wrong'

I poted this: "85% of ammo used in Normandy was HE" to get: I then reply: ---------------------------------------------- Originally posted by JasonC: And they shot a lot of HE(in Normandy) because the Germans had no tanks. ------------------------------------------------- No German tanks? On 1/6/44 there were 1928 German tanks in The West. That is 15 more than on the entire Russian Front. 1000 were in action by the end of June. 1000 more by the end of July. monthly total German tanks Sept = 540 Oct = 1026 Nov. = 1413 Dec = 1632 Jan = 1504 riposte Well because you replied to my SPECIFIC example of HE expenditure IN NORMANDY by saying the Germans had no tanks I rashly assumed you were talking about a lack of tanks in Normandy. Therefore when I replied I put the 'Normandy' in brackets to highlight it was not in your original and that my example referd to the Normandy period. Interesting that in among the largest concentration of German armour ever that the TD's fired 85% HE/15%ap. Because I wanted you to know that there were still a lot of German tanks I then gave you the figures up to January 1945. This was to show that barring September there were still a lot of them around. Is that cleared up Jason?

Yes Jason kept his head. Yes Jason does not bait. No Jason does call me a 'silly person' in every post. But then you agree I am 'silly'. Jason can rely on your total support. You can only post to say Jason is right and I am wrong. Can we take it as read from now on? PS. do you have anything to add on the historical side of the thread or would you prefer to wait and ask Jason what your opinion is?

Yes he uses the word failure but what do the qualifiers 'concept' 'doctrine' and 'doctrinal concept' mean in 3 of those sentences? Gabel gives a number of examples where the doctrine failed (in a book that concludes that the TD concept was a failure you would expect as much) yet here we have you cherry picking quotes that you say prove the opposite! Gabel must be a very stupid man if he missed the implication of these sentences. Did it ever cross your mind that the accepted opinion about the TD doctrine failure might be correct? That the reason they were done away with was because the job was much better left to proper tanks? Where are the books or papers written by those who say they should have been developed further? Every book I have read says the concept was not a success despite being full of praise for the Corps record in WW2. To overcome such a weight of agreement you had better have very good arguments and data. Yes Jason has an argument but he has no case. You seem to believe that once Jason speaks on a subject then the onus is on everyone to show why he is wrong. He is the one with the startling new revelation and he has failed to show any evidence other than a couple of incidents he copied from Cavanagh. When you claim higher than average kill ratios for individual weapons systems the norm is to back it with detailed data. Jason has no data at all other than his national prejudice. You harp on about getting to bogged down in detail when get no detail at all from Jason. Big picture? Big con more like.