michael kenny
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by michael kenny
-
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
mk - get thee to thy library and work, little man. I don't have a working scanner and I fetch and carry only for such as pay me (or family, or womenfolk, ...)
As I thought, you do not have a "verbatim from British officer's accounts" reference.
Nice swerve there.
I don't doubt you can find a Britisher who said only British things can slice bread, or more to the point a cavalryman who thought 40 mph beats a 75mm gun and thicker plate. But then of course that way (the latter I mean not the former) lies Knightsbridge.Typical Jason. All things not stamped 'made in the USA 'are to be denigrated.
By the way boy, I am not a 'Britisher'.
-
Perhaps you could be so good as to either scan the pages or give me the quotes here? I don't have the book and would just like to check out the quote (you said verbatim?) I can then try and find the original work that has the quote(s)Originally posted by JasonC:source for biblio mom, Forging the Thunderbolt, stackpole book on the origins of the US armor branch. See the sections on just before combat stuff, quotes Brit officers in the western desert etc. Also covers several of the other points I raised (SPA, etc), as I happened to be reading it at the same time the thread was started.
In return I could give you other verbatim quotes (Harry Ramsbottom from 4th CLY) showing that some still prefered their old 'useless' Cruiser tanks.
-
Yeah, whatever you say brains.
and the source is?Originally posted by JasonC:The comment about the Grant is taken verbatim from British officer's accounts of the desert war.
-
and the source is?Originally posted by JasonC:The comment about the Grant is taken verbatim from British officer's accounts of the desert war.
So our 'old git' has set out to copy Céline!
Deliberate falsification of geography and history?
Truth and/or fiction?
The GI's journey from America to France a recreation of Bardamu's voyage from Africa to America?
Maybe it is a sad old mans dreams-or a very clever homage to his favourite author?
I wish I was intelligent enough to know what it is I am saying!
-
Perhaps you missed the bit where I wrote:Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:You're still not getting it. *shrug* If you want to stare wide-eyed at some dude who announces he is a veteran and was smarter than Eisenhower and the entire Allied High Command, knock your socks off.
" my problem is not with those who thought he was an imposter"
Now you sound as arrogant as Jason. Perhaps an example of this 'better understanding' can be shown?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Don't piss on Jason simply because he knows better than you.
Maybe here?
A Jason answer:
They tended to hang around as command tanks and on regimental staff and the like. Weren't meant to be used still for front line combat, though.
An answer from one with less understanding:
Zetterling in Normandy 1944 notes 8./Pz Regt 22 as having 6 short barrel Pz IV s.
6/44 21 Pz Div had 21 short barrel Pz IV s.
20/8/43 26 Pz Div had 17 short barrel Pz IV s.
21/1/44 26 Pz Div had 11 short barrel Pz IV s.
233rd Reserve Pz Div 1/12/44 3 short barrel Pz IV s
The trick is knowing your limitations and instead of trying to answer every question personally point the enquirer towards those you know have the real answer.
Must go now. Have discovered a helpful man with hundreds of original WW2 Normandy battlefield recce photos. I might find someone 'who knows better' who could help me with them..........original research and all that....
-
Though it now seems this 'old git' is indeed genuine my problem is not with those who thought he was an imposter. Rather it is the petty and vindictive way he was dismissed by Jason.
He may wiggle now by saying it was all a bit of showing off and a chance to show his 'Buffy' skills. Thats the problem when you are too clever by half. Less endowed individuals miss the point.
It was also (loosely) a pop culture reference that few apparently got (BTVS, Joyce of principal Schneider). -
How do you 'disprove' an opinion? What exactly is conclusive proof that something is 'the best'?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:And he is quite accurate when he indicates that if anyone wants to explain why his historical points are inaccurate, they are welcome to post alternative views and sources...
-
Well because you are pig ignorant. Is that plain enough?Originally posted by JasonC:.
If you can't, then you dispute it anyway because...
Perhaps you should be reminded of something from another site?
Informed debate is appropriate so long as it is CONSTRUCTIVE...........
Now where did I read that Jason?
-
I would think the real reason for this garbage
is that the unfortunate gentleman would not admit that:Originally posted by JasonC:Actually, it is wise to dismiss him as an ill informed crabby old git.........
Which shows he was a small-minded vindictive rodent of a man.......
no thanks to sad full of themselves old coots like this useless stuffsack........
Well duh, it is called a war, you silly gasbag...........
Hmmm.........who else could the phraseWhen they first got Grants in the western desert, Brits wept with joy.He thinks his BAR was "made" in 1917 when it was designed in 1917 - and was way ahead of its time, copied by the Czech and Brits leading to the Bren, etc.
As a result, the US had the finest SP arty in the world
Meanwhile the US created the finest airborne infantry force in history
"sad full of themselves old coots like this useless stuffsack"
apply to?
Answers on a postcard please!
-
-
More information than you would expect.......
http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14400
However I understand 'Rich' may not be regarded as a credible source by some.........
-
It is in the 654 Combat History book from JJF. There are so many views of knocked out Elefants that there is much to wade through to try and find the one you mentioned.
-
2 not 3Originally posted by John Kettler:[QB] It was a panoramic shot of the Kursk battlefield with, I believe, three dead/abandoned Ferdinands
-
The 'confusion' is I was assuming wartime production not the slower peacetime production. That is all.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:[ I'm confused - soviet tank losses in 1941 were pretty much all it's pre-war production - is this point in question?
-
Or 5,600 light,medium and heavy tanks produced in 1941.Originally posted by Bastables:Production of AFV 1941 and only 1941: 6590 (1996 Harrison: pg180).
(Krivosheev)
What about tank/SP production in 1942, 28,000.
1943, 27,000.
1944, 35,000
1945, 13,5OO (to May 1945)
Losses in 1941-45 20,000/15,000/23,500/23,700/13,700.
looks like 1945 is the only year that the tank park went backwards as they had a net loss of 200 tanks that year.The Soviets still had 25,000 tanks and 10,000 SP guns in May 1945.
-
So you are talking about pre-war peacetime production! Obviously you have the production figures/years for the 21,000 light tanks in Soviet service on 22/06/41? Can you post them?Originally posted by Bastables:Try opening year of Barbarossa.
Using the same sleight of hand we could show that in 1941 the heavy tank stock was destroyed twice and the medium tank force destroyed 2.5 times
-
Love to see the figures for a years production of any tank lost in 3 months.........I think your source is wrong.Originally posted by Bastables:........ Losing entire year tank production lots to combat in spaces of 3 months was targted?.........
Whatever the Soviet practise was one thing stands out.....IT WORKED!
-
Partial quote are, as they say, 'partial'.Originally posted by JasonC:[QB] I see this line from Rich Anderson online at his US army in WW II website. It appears to have gained wide currency.
"the lightly armored tank destroyers *proved regularly* that they were *unable to engage and destroy enemy armor when it attacked* in mass, even when the tank destroyers were deployed in concealed defensive positions.".
What about the sentence in its full context?
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/doctrine.aspx
-------------------------------------------
Doctrine and Training
"U.S. Army doctrine, as developed during the prewar and early-war Army expansion, emphasized mobility and combined-arms in both attack and defense. Mobility was achieved by developing reliable, robust armored and soft-skin vehicles. Unfortunately, in the case of tanks and tank destroyers, thickness of armor was sacrificed in the interest of mobility to the detriment of U.S. Army armored vehicles in tank-versus-tank-combat. This flaw was exacerbated by one of General McNair's fundamental beliefs (later proved to have been fundamentally unsound) that the armored division would not be required to engage and destroy enemy armored formations since that would be the task of the tank destroyers. Rather he visualized the armor divisions as a cavalry force to exploit gaps opened in the enemy lines by the tank-supported infantry divisions. The major flaw in this concept was that the lightly armored tank destroyers proved regularly that they were unable to engage and destroy enemy armor when it attacked in mass, even when the tank destroyers were deployed in concealed defensive positions. While the tank destroyers on defense were often able to delay or blunt an armored attack, they could rarely defeat them. Thus, instead of operating in an independent antiarmor role, the tank destroyers were semi-permanently attached to infantry and armored divisions, while armored divisions were forced to take up defensive as well as offensive missions, a role for which they were not well designed (since they lacked sufficient infantry)."
-----------------------------------------------
Would it not be better to take it up with Rich himself?Now here is my problem. Nobody has remotely established this proposition, and in fact it is false..........................................It was basically pure second hand smear in other words.
If anyone knows otherwise and can cite actual occasions, I am all ears.
No doubt he would be grateful when you point out his 'mistake'.
Perhaps you could repost your argument at Dupuy where Rich can see it and respond. Failing that Rich also posts at AHF
http://forum.axishistory.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=7220
I do not know enough to answer with any authority on US Army matters but would welcome the chance to see this 'second hand smear' laid to rest.
-
Try the 3 volume T34 work from Ajaks.Originally posted by JasonC:. So far we've seen nothing definitive about how rare or common it was.
When a source says it was produced at 3 factories, you have to understand that practically all T-34s were made at a whopping 6 and these were huge affairs. Being made at 3 factories could mean half to practically all of 1942 output.
There you will find mention of this uparmouring at factory 112 (Gorky, Spring 1943)and at STZ (Stalingrad, late 1942)
Mention is also made of a Repair Workshop 27 welding armour plate on the turret sides
-
his is the pic. It was taken from one of the TD sites but I can't remember which one. The remaining turret number style('2') say sPzAbt 506
-
Harry,
sPzAbt.506 do not list any losses for Oct. 15th but did send 2 very badly damaged tanks back to Germany on the 20th.
However on 17/11/44 they do say 3 Tigers were lost to artillery.
Did you every resolve the issue with the film of the TII's.
Lastly there is a photo I have seen. A close up of a TII turret with a couple of penetrations in the l/h side. I presume it was a bit of test shooting and wonder if you have come across it in your research.
-
November the 6th when I first asked for the references used to 'explode' the revisionist rhetoric. It seems I am not going to get it. Probably because it only exists in the mind of one poster. No matter. As a leaving present I include the German/US SP losses in the summer of '44.Originally posted by JasonC:[QB] TWO only accounting as German spin is a well known and thoroughly exploded piece of revisionist rhetoric
The figures are from 'Rich' not me.
Losses of SP TD, Sturmgeschuetz and Panzerjaeger
June –
German
27 StuG-III (L48)
29 Pak Sfl 7.5cm
56 Total
6-20 June –
US
1 M-10
1 Total
July –
German
68 StuG-III (L48)
15 Pak Sfl 7.5cm
83 Total
21 June-20 July
US
17 M-10
17 Total
August –
German
14 Stu-Pz
98 StuG-III (L48)
24 Pak Sfl 7.5cm
136 Total
21 July-20 August
US
28 M-10
6 M-18
34 Total
September –
German
17 Pz-IV (L70) (PzJg-IV)
2 StuG-III (L24)
4 StuG-III (L43)
348 StuG-III (L48)
2 StuG-IV (L48)
21 StuH
71 JgPz-38t
65 Pak Sfl 7.5cm
24 Jagdpanther
554 Total
21 August-20 September
US
40 M-10
6 M-18
46 Total
21 September-20 October
US
71 M-10
14 M-18
2 M36
87 Total
June-September
German Total – 829
6 June – 20 October
US Total – 185
-
Give me the references where this is explained to you-or are you claiming it as your 'discovery'?Originally posted by JasonC:TWO only accounting as German spin is a well known and thoroughly exploded piece of revisionist rhetoric,
This mystery 'OR solution' again.Originally posted by JasonC:The OR solution is also well known, watch runners, and that suffices to explain the actual battle narrative.
What is it?
where is it explained?
-
Ok now John?
The point of all this rambling seems to have been lost. I am no champion of the of 5 Shermans for 1 Panther/Tiger myth. I do not accept that Allied tankers existed simply as targets for the Panzers to prove their superiority. However it does no good to take the exact opposite view and cliam (one of) the Allies was able to outfight the Germans and inflict more losses than it sustained. After years trying to get to the bottom of this subject, (tank losses in Northern France, that should stop the arguments about dates and location!)I was unable to escape the inevitable. When all the hard data is sifted the overall exchange rate was slightly less than 2:1 in the Germans favour.
However the way the data was collated by the protagonists precludes any like for like comparison of the figures. There are gaps, double counting, errors and omissions that defy any attempt at closure.
Thus if you believe the Germans wiped the floor with the Allies you point to the number of tanks simply abandonned and not count those hulks as 'combat losses'. All Allied tanks hit are counted as write offs and no German tank is considered lost until it is burnt out in front of 16 Nuns who can all testify to the fact. Now your German total loss figure is way below the Allied one and the 5:1 ratio comes in to play!
If you want to disparage the British figures you endlessly repeat the mantra that 500 tanks were lost during Goodwood. Forget that this is the total of all tanks hit/damaged and lost and that 300+ were later repaired and put back into combat.
You then compare this total to some 80+ German write offs, totaly ignore all the hit and damaged German tanks to get your 'Brits were stuffed' version.
Equally if you want to show how the Germans were totaly oufought you carefully select their own data to use against them. Thus anything not written down is assumed to be lost or destroyed. Any omission in a strength return is counted as a loss and can never re-enter the picture. By using the same method for pre-invasion returns you can see some Units lost more than half their tanks without firing a single shot or being engaged in any combat!
Allegations that June and July German loss accounts are deliberately falsified and on the low side is not an option I would recommend. I would save this tactic as a last resort. Suggesting dissenting authors are 'revisionists' is really a doomsday weapon and not to be countenanced unless your position is about to be overwhelmed.
I checked up on the site referenced by Jason and I find it is actualy Zetterlings own site. I know it by another name and did not realise it was the same one. I was wrong to disparage it as a 'gamer' site.
Do I think Zetterling has a bias? Yes EVERY author has a bias. Knowing this allows you to make an allowance for it and helps you discount it.
Is Zetterling the absolute last word on Normandy (Northern France)? No and if you read my linked threads you can see I have been attacked several times for daring to suggest he missed some very high profile actions where Heavy Bombers inflicted significant losses on some Panzer Units. I have corresponded with Zetterling and he is the first to admit he is not perfect. Not being perfect is far from being a 'revisionist' though.
Germany lost most of its equipment in Northern France. Substantial numbers of individual tanks did make it out of the pocket and litter the roads to the Seine and beyond. Losses were spread right across August in the Falaise pocket.
A vet's unflinching account of service in the 104th Reg. 26th Inf. Div.
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Nothing to do with the M3.The issue is the quote Jason gave:
"When they first got Grants in the western desert, Brits wept with joy"
When challenged he responded:
"The comment about the Grant is taken verbatim from British officer's accounts of the desert war."
Then later:
"See the sections on just before combat stuff, quotes Brit officers in the western desert etc"
Unfortunately Jason does not have access to a scanner so he is unable to show us these quotes. The only help he gives is an admonishment to
"get thee to thy library and work"
Well after a quick perusal of my volumes (a fairly substantial collection numbering in the several thousands)it would seem I was not able to aquire a copy of this fine work. The source of the reports about these poor men on their knees and in rapture is to be denied me.
This is nothing to do with any criticism of M3's M4's or M5's. I do not need to disparage other tanks to promote the ones made in my country. Nor do I feel the need to crucify any poor soul who does not share my myopic view of military history
Lets not confuse things. I want to know the source of the VERBATIM report that Jason used, NOTHING ELSE.
I am quite well informed about all the late war tanks used by The Allies and The Axis.