michael kenny
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by michael kenny
-
-
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?Originally posted by coe:hmmm 8 hits on a tank? I wonder was that hit repeatedly because the other team thought it was still alive, or tried to set it on fire? Or was it just lucky until the 8th hit?
-
Best I can give you. Sorry but this time I did not have the time to OCR and format it for here.Originally posted by John Kettler:What I don't see, though, are U.S. tallies for North Africa and British totals for the ETO. Surely both are available?
-
Misunderstanding?Originally posted by jwatts:most people don't have the time to do the amount of reading as you on the Second World War, and I think to dismiss any miisunderstandings of the truth as fanboy folly is wrong, not to mention extremely rude.
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.Originally posted by jwatts:. Nothing discourages discussion more than insults to intelligence.
Originally posted by JasonC:Are chapter and verse really necessary -
indispensable I would say.
Originally posted by JasonC:isn't this tolerably obvious to everyone
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.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:And Rams on M3 chassis were used right to the end of the war too - but the point wasn't about use - it was about production.
Equality will do for me!Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:When you guys discuss the info instead of semantics it's great - otherwise you both look like morons.
-
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
Total German production of AFVs was about 47,500I see the full total of tanks, SP Artillery, command tanks, flamethrowers ect as 54,500
not 20,000.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!Originally posted by JasonC:"Pz 38 chassis..."
Beyond lame. Read the paragraph, nitwit.
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 ]
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
AFVs, not turreted tanks.
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 for the IIIs, not only were they not discontinued,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!
As for fleet size, they sent 3000 AFVs into Russia; and panzer Is can hardly be counted as AFVs. (I do not include them above, any more than armored cars or halftracks). They readily maintained ~7000 later in the war - which was the size of the Russian fleet at its nadir at the end of 1941.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.
As for trucks, the Germans readily expanded their mobile division total from a dozen early in the war to fifty by the end. The basis of their transport system was rail anyway.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 ]
-
originaly posted by JasonC
The Germans continued to produce lower quality stuff throughout the war, precisely to use all available productive capacity. Pz 38 chassis found lots of other uses but never went away. The Pz III and Pz IV remained the middle 2/3rds of the production distribution right to the end, with only a sixth of German output superior types.
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.
originaly posted by JasonCAs for supplying them, the Germans were running tank fleets twice as large throughout 1943 and 1944, and did so without any problems
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.
-
originaly posted by JasonC
In front of Nancy, a German commander who continued reckless negative odds attacks until 90% of his force was gone, was formally reprimanded for "lack of offensive spirit" because he went over to the defensive with 30 AFVs left.
reply by Pamak1970
First of all I do not know the details
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 DupuyOriginally posted by JasonC:Germany could readily have beaten Russia with an attrition strategy. . .........
-
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!Originally posted by flamingknives:"Roughly half the hull armour" is all very well, but it has no bearing against the tactical reality.
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.
-
Originally posted by flamingknives:
If you are "at the sharp end", how is this in any way relevant to a discussion to the tactical usage of Second World War Armoured Fighting Vehicles? Why mention it?
Where I've seen such comments before it's from people trying to gain some ex cathedra advantage.
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
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Hardly. You're some dude sitting at a terminal.
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.
The Sherman tank crews I've read about pretty much threw as much concrete, log, sandbag, spare track, or sheet armour on their tanks as possible thinking it "wasn't enough."Come to think of it, I've never seen M10s with a similar treatment. Could it be they didn't feel they needed it?
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.I doubt many sharp-enders had much access to statistical data; those that did probably thought little of it. -
In a nutshell that is where we differ. I am down at the sharp end where it is far from 'irrelevant'.Originally posted by JonS:In literal terms, the M10 has less armour than the M4.
In practical terms, the difference is 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.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Like JonS said, you are a literalist. It may explain your frustration and inability to relate to the discussion, which is based on broad themes.
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?
-
Originally posted by Corvidae:
Mr Kenny,
I cant even figure out what your position is, let alone if you are right or wrong.
You are all over the map. And it's making my head hurt.
Lets simplify the whole discussion please,
YES OR NO only
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:
Originally posted by JasonC:And they shot a lot of HE because the Germans had no tanks
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.Originally posted by JasonC:Lying again, adding an "in Normandy" that I didn't say.
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?
-
Originally posted by JonS:
The above is the crux of the matter.I see all your points as gross misrepresentation.
I would like to see a breakdowns of actual losses before I will accept the claim about TD kills.
I have seen only unconfirmed crew claims used instead. They are never accurate and if you accept the US raw calims for the Bulge fighting then it follows that we must also use the German raw claims.
Now we can compare like with like and as they claim 1700 destroyed US tanks and 100 captured we need not go any further. The Germans destroyed far more tanks then they lost and the issue is resolved!
I think it childish that we have people 'demanding ' that I admit I am wrong. Well tough luck because I dont think my conclusion (conclusions that are neither provacative or new)are in any way in conflict with the evidence.
The best anyone here can say is that they think their case has greater merit than the others.
They MAY be right and they MAY be wrong.
Saying Gabel is wrong is not the same as Gabel being wrong. I have no doubt you genuinely believe he is not clever enough to realise he is decieving himself but it could equally be that you are the one in blinkers.Naturaly I have no such handicap.
Jon I have woked with you before and you know I do have some insight in this area. Kill claims v reality is something of an obsession with me and just as I rubbished the 5 Panther 1 Sherman claims I also deny the 5:1+ ratios claimed for the TD Battalions. The claim about US armour outscoring the Germans in every encounter is equally absurd. Until I get the figures to confirm it then yes I am a skeptic.
My dream would be for someone to come forward with detailed tables that prove the TD kill claims. I can admit that I could be wrong and to get data like that I will endure any humiliation.
Quite simply the evidence is lacking and the TD claims are just what they purport to be, claims.
Jasons attitude and overbearing arrogance grate on me. I see him making claims about losses that simply are not true. The actual figures are available to anyone with a mind to look for them.
I may be prepared to admit I have similar character flaws but that does not make me wrong over the loss ratios.
Mr Dorosh you really you do not add anything to the debate.
I understand that you think Jason is right and I am wrong. There is no need to keep reminding me of this fact. I consider you partial and in no way an objective observer.
-
Yes Jason kept his head.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:wow. Not only are you the one baiting, but you're obviously riled that Jason has still kept his head. "Silly" is a rather mild pejorative given the kinds of things you've been posting and passing off as historical discussion or reasoned debate.
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?Originally posted by JonS:failure of the tank destroyer concept
tank destroyer ... doctrine ... failed
:tank destroyers ... failed to nullify [enemy tanks]
Seek, Strike, and Destroy ultimately failed as a doctrinal concept
No, Gabel never used the magic word 'failure'
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.
2 Pounder problems?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Spot the difference............