michael kenny

may I remind you of something you said earlier: not! Yep the US lost 500 tanks in 'Normandy' and another 1000 to 'other causes' up to the end of Sptember! Perhaps you see too much of yourself in him? When your whole theory rest on the claim that the German figures for June and July are falsified then either post the research that backs the claim or shut up.

This was posted October 20, 2006 08:07 AM posted posted November 05, 2006 07:47 PM I suppose when you try and insult someone by citing an action where you mistakenly believe UK forces were bested when it was actualy US forces involved you would prefer to slink away. No I object when you try and exclude 'Light tanks' because the Germans did not list theirs. I simply asked which German 'light armour' you could include as I know there was very little. Now you want to include SP Artillery! Stugs and tank hunters I would let in because they do not change the picture all that much but if you want Wasps in then you also have to include Priests and M7's on the Allied side. You are losing the plot and are unable to offer anything of substance. Your ramblings about falsified German loss figures and attacks on Zetterlings honesty gave the game away.

Ok, I am sitting here with the returns for 1st SS in front of me. It says for July 1st they have 101 PzIV but only 30 are ready for action. Does this mean the other 73 (I know it does not tally but that is what using original documents does for you) are written off? Perhaps Jason, as you know so much about these returns, you could help me. Why does sSS PzAbt 101 list that it has 5 Tigers in the Pz.Abt.Stabs Kompanie on August 1st? As everyone knows there should only be three Tigers in the HQ Company. 5 is distinctly odd. Any help on this site you use as a reference?

As stated earlier being a veteran of many such encounters I have had many problems with: a) The geographic limits of 'Normandy' The end dates for the 'Normandy' campaign. c) The treatment of the campaign fron Falaise to the Seine. I said the elimination of the Falaise pocket(August 21st) as I thought this would be suitably near the differing dates but perhaps I could be wrong? I did put a question mark at the end of the quote.

Sorry but they are SP Guns and not tanks. Stop mixing things up. Do we have to include all the US/UK SP guns in the figures as well? ]

No he don't! Having been involved in many such spats over the years I am well aware of the differing dates/areas for 'Normandy'.

'Revisionists'? You seem happy to use Zetterling's data when it suits you. Now you say he is a revisionist! Perhaps you might like some information on German reporting practise. German tanks were not written off in Germany but by the Unit in the field. US practise was as you describe but not German. This is Rich explaining things to me a few years back: "Sorry Michael, but I think you may be a little too fixated on the matter of dates. I have found in an extensive review of the Panzerlage for AOK 10 and AOK 14 in Italy, that many of the daily totals as found in unit monthly Meldungen may actually date from daily reports made to army up to three days prior to the report date on the Meldung itself. In other words, the date in a report is the record date, not neccessarily the date on which that strength and loss data were valid, unless a specific reporting date and time is given. So it is quite conceivable that 5 losses were incurred as you say in the period from 27 to 30 June, but that the loss of the fifth wasn't recorded until 1, 2, 3, or even 4 July. We do know that 101 recorded 30 onhand on 6 July, a decrease of 15, and recorded losing 15 by 5 July, so where is the problem? Some further musings - hopefully of interest and not straying too far from the subject. In Italy it was customary to file operational status in the daily Morgenmeldung and a complete Ist report, including onhand, operational, short and long-term repair, every three to four days. I would assume, given the systematic nature of the German General Staff, that similar practices were in place in OB-West. Furthermore, the two reports had slightly different purposes, the daily report was intended for the army commander and his Ia, for planning purposes, whereas the second was mostly the concern of the Qu., for losgistical purposes. However, part of the problem with SS 101 is that in Normandy the reports that are extant are mostly the daily operational records. The more extensive Ist reports are mostly missing, as are most of the loss reports except for the cummulative totals. This the ongoing arguments over strengths and losses, but on the other hand, if they weren't fragmentary what would we have to ramble on about?"

Classic case of shooting yourself in the foot Jason? Normaly I would not dream of using a website but........... http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen5.htm "In early July of 1944, Das Reich was moved to Saint Lo to halt the advance of the US Army's 9th and 30th Infantry Divisions and the 3rd Armored Division. On July 8th, Barkmann's Kompanie was a spearhead of Regiment's attack on the advancing American units. On this day, Ernst Barkmann knocked out his first Allied Sherman tank near St.Lo. On July 12th, he destroyed two more Shermans while disabling the third one. During that engagement Barkmann moved his camouflaged Panther to ambush position and awaited for more Allied armor, knocking out three Shermans. After that Ernst Barkmann's tank was hit by an anti-tank gun which caused fire. He decided to abandon his burning Panther and along with his crew he quickly put out the fire. After that engagement his Panther ended up in the workshop for repairs. After a day of rest, in morning of July 14th, Barkmann was ordered to recover four Panthers that had been cut off behind enemy lines. He succeeded in his task and added three more Shermans to his score. On the same day at noon, Ernst Barkmann was ordered by the Regimental Commander SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Tychsen to recover wounded German soldiers from their American captors. Once again he succeeded and in the evening his own Panther was returned to him from the workshop. On July 26th, Barkmann's Panther suffered from engine problem and was sent to field workshop.When mechanics were working on it, field workshop was attacked by Allied fighter-bombers and Barkmann's Panther was hit in the engine compartment. By the dawn of July 27th, his Panther was repaired but he was cut off from the rest of the Kompanie and was on his way to rejoin it. On his way back, near the village of Le Lorey, Barkmann was stopped by the retreating German infantrymen who reported that Americans were closing in. Ernst Barkmann decided to send two of his men to verify that report. They soon returned with news of American column made up of some 15 Shermans and other vehicles approaching. Then Barkmann moved his tank up the road to the crossroad where he positioned his Panther in the surrounding oak trees, awaiting the enemy. When the American column approached, Ernst Barkmann opened fire, knocking out two leading tanks and then tanker truck.Two Shermans tried to go around burning wreckage that blocked the road and one of them was knocked out followed by the other one.In the response, Americans retreated and called up the tactical fighter support and Barkmann's Panther was damaged and some of the crew members were wounded. Using the element of suprise two Shermans attacked "wounded" Panther but were also knocked out.Barkmann and his crew repaired their Panther and knocked out single Sherman while leaving.His driver managed to moved their damaged Panther to the safety of nearby village of Neufbourg. During that brave engagement often called "Barkmann's Corner", Ernst Barkmann destroyed approximately nine Sherman tanks and many other various vehicles." What have UK forces got to do with Barkmann?

And that is your problem. You have this 'theory'. For it to work you MUST discredit the early June/July figures. Even you realise the very high losses you want for early August are simply too high to be credible. Thus you have to get more German losses into June/July. Sorry Jason but you are sunk. This is the full and total write off loss for June/July: June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224 July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288 That is a total of around 500. Are you saying the figures are deliberately falsified? And if so by whom? Evidence for this lunacy? I suppose you missed the sentence 'German reporting broke down in the first weeks of AUGUST. June and July are not AUGUST. This is why I never use AUGUST figures and have to rely on the re-calculations in September. Its called 'guessing'. Hoping something is true does not make it true. TANK losses remember. Tanks, tanks,tanks....... Tanks Jason, tanks............. Quite a novel approach.I wish you luck in your crusade to apply this new way of looking at losses to the wider research community. No, of course they didn't. US forces always won. I do not need the site. I have the book. Seeing as you set such great store by this book (a Zetterling acolyte perhaps?)Maybe a quote from page 82 might give you food for thought: "The Germans lost a total of 2366 tanks and 1684 assault guns in the period from June 1st to August 31st on all fronts. How many of these were lost in Normandy is impossible to tell. Even though many tank units had perhaps less than 10% of their original tanks still OPERATIONAL at the end of the battle of Falaise, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REST HAD BEEN LOST." No one denies the totality of the German losses but to try and skew it all to fit your belief in US invincibility destroys your credibility. You believe the June and July loss figures are 'hogwash'. Perhaps some proof might help you convince us everyone is out of step but you?

Oh ok then Mr 'USA is best' let us use the June figures only US = 213 UK = 146.......... err I mean let us use the figures to July US = 522 UK = 377.......... oh I mean use the figures to August US = 1187 UK = 1211 See, I told you MK was sly. He uses the early figures to hide the enormous number of UK tank losses and the really low US losses. How could you not realise that losing 24 extra tanks is a good example how the UK was 'stuffed' and the USA triumphed in all tank v tank actions. One more example of Jasons thorough exposure of my deception: Well no actualy. There are no tanks from Dragoon included here. The 786 total are all 1st/3rd Army tanks. Have another shot. By the way Normandy is always assumed to be up to the end of the Falaise pocket. You have other parameters I believe? And the number of German 'light Armour' in Normandy(or Brittany, Mortain, Lorraine ect) is................. I am sorry my 'joke' was taken as a request for clarification..................

Well good for you but if you do the most basic search you will find that there are several old posts and threads where I tackle Zetterling and his opinion on Allied Air Power in Normandy head on. from 2005: "When I first got Zetterlings book on Normandy it seemed 'the' answer to everything. I have a rather narrow field of interest so I have to accept 99% of his book on trust. However the more I looked into those areas where I had some special insight the more I became aware of discrepancies. eg: The total of Tigers lost during Goodwood. The effect of the bombing of sPzAbt 503/21st PD. The complete absence of any knowledge that sSS PzAbt 101 was also successfully bombed. The suggestion the bombing of Villers Bocage was not actually carried out. The difference between Zetterling's daily total of Tigers in SS 101 and SS102 and those given by Wood and Dougdale. There are others but is it that the only errors happen to be in an area where I just happen to specialise or that I just dont know enough to find other mistakes? I am not out to pick faults with Zetterling as no work is perfect. Zetterling himself admits he is not error free so I suppose my main gripe would be with those who promote his Normandy book as 'the' absolute reference on the Normandy Campaign. I also share the view he is way too disposed towards the German forces in Normandy and the impression I get is his Kursk book showed the Germans did not really lose at Kursk and that the Normandy book showed Germans were not decisively beaten in France. I also think Reynolds has far too much of a pro-German bias, just to show I have no anti-Zetterling bias! from 2003: "Niklas Zetterling wrote his Normandy book in 2000 and in his section on the effects of Air Power on German armour losses seems to have become the 'bible' for this subject. However as I specialised in a rather narrow field it became obvious (to me anyway) that the figures he quotes for the Tiger losses in particular was far too low. It has since been conceded that his figure of only 4 Tigers in total lost during Goodwood is wrong by a factor of x3 because Heer 503 alone lost at least 10 Tigers on 18/7/44. That is old ground and I have gone over it at length on several forums and from experience I realise that any criticism of Zetterling arouses a strong reaction in his supporters. I have been subject to many jibes as to how he is far more qualified than an amateur like me to know what he is talking about and as a result of the many taunts of 'prove it' leveled at me I have had to do a bit of digging in this area which I admit is not my forte. Leaving aside the fact Zetterling does not seem to know that sSS PzAbt 101 was bombed on 15/6/44 I found other references in the Heimdal book on 21st Panzer Division that say 1/Panzerregiment 22 was 'wiped out' (page 386, 394,395) and in 45 Tiger en Normandy (Didier Lodieu 2003) it mentions how StugG. Abt 200 suffered similar heavy losses. Both books have photos of the destroyed vehicles. This is only me scratching the surface and it seems clear Zetterling's assertion that only 503 suffered any bombing damage on 18/7/44 is not correct. Could anyone else shed more light in this area? Could I also ask if someone could help sort out the claim of 60 German tanks of Panzer Brigade 112 destroyed at Dompaire on 13/9/44 were mainly due to TAC Thunderbolts? The number destroyed is not disputed just the cause. German accounts credit the aircraft with the kills." Have you been able to add to our understanding in this area in another forum? What is an 'OR type by the way? Some sort of superior being who is beyond challenge? Note that I mention the Panther Units you keep harping on about in one of my posts. See you are not the only ones who knows anything about them!

Lets get back to the basics here. We will start with a time frame where the figures are undisputed. US tank losses June 231 July 291 total 522 German tank losses June 224 July 288 total 512 Now if Jasons pet theory is correct then ALL the German tanks lost must have been destroyed in the US sector. The Commonweaalth forces then did not destroy a single German tank! Sample wiggles? Do not count US Stuarts because they are not really tanks.......... Most US tanks were knocked out by mines, pak and infantry......... Where are the Stugs ect (same place as the M10's I suppose) I was wrong and admit it (sorry that is a fantasy scenario!) Now for the next period we must go to September because there are no concrete figures for the German losses in August. US tank losses to September 1537 German tank losses to September 1845. Thus between them the entire fleet of Commonwealth tanks got less than 300 German tanks! Can we stick to this one point for now. I will go into all the others in detail later if you want. I just want the figures Jason has that allow him to make such strange assertions about US tank forces ability to master the panzers. Back your original claim or withdraw it. Do you have any souces other than a gaming site?

You are so far off the mark............... http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=89139 Your use of the figures is the problem. You are using incomplete and partial German strength reports. Anything not listed on paper is,in your eyes, 'destroyed'. The 'figures' you try and disparage are not mine. I got them from varoius postings by Rich (Richard Anderson)at AHF, http://forum.axishistory.com/search.php?search_author=RichTO90 Feldgrau http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/search.php?search_author=Rich and The Dupuy Forums. He has been compiling this data for years and, unlike you, knows what he is talking about. I reccomend you spend some time looking through his posts. It will show you just how foolish it would be to question his data. Several times I pointed out that the figures were for TANKS and/or AFV's. I do not need any help identifying the different types of AFV's. I also clearly stated that the German August figures were incomplete and the September figures would include most of the August losses. Did you miss that bit or is it a deliberate attempt on your part to pretend you have 'discovered' important information to back your guesswork on the real losses? Did you also miss the bit where I said the true scale of the German losses will never be known? (by anyone except you that is) Keep it up Jason, gamers are the true historians............... a link well worth checking..... http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=87408 [ November 06, 2006, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

D/P

D/P [ November 05, 2006, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

To me he said that US armour always knocked out more Panzers than their Sherman losses. He also said US tactics were superior to UK practise and that the US always triumphed. I also remember his quote that the UK was always 'stuffed' by the Germans. I doubt you will find anything that backs that assumption. The Allies lost more tanks than the Germans, no question. To my ears Jason says that the German losses to August 11th were higher and he did some conjuring tricks with the German strength reports to reach this conclusion.

strange that Jason has changed his views recently. posted August 16, 2005 10:24 AM from this page: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004196;p=4

The US loss figures are pretty accurate. The UK ones are incomplete as total loss and damaged are sometimes counted together. The German June and July figures should be considered correct but the August figure is only a partial count. The German September losses include the majority of those Panzers lost in August. If it were not this confusing then we would have had the loss figures revealed a long time ago. The prevailing opinion used to be the '10 Shermans for 1 Tiger' myth, death ride of the UK Armour AT Goodwood ect. By struggling with the (conflicting) data we can get the upper and lower limit for the actual losses. For the period to September the ratio was just under 2:1 in the German favour. The life-line for the Uber-Panzer faithful is trying to find how many German tanks simply ran out of fuel and were abandonned undamaged. They seem to have been a substantial portion of the total and by subtracting them from the equation we get .... "but most German tanks were not knocked out and so are not really destroyed"........... The myth of the high scoring Tigers and Panthers marches on untroubled by reality! It is plain that though the Panzers did not rack up multiple scores they did outperform the Allied Units. You can find examples where they came unstuck and were destroyed in numbers but OVERALL they got more bang for the mark than the Allies managed.

A quote from Zetterling's book that should give some people pause for thought: "Even though many (German)tank Units had perhaps less than 10% of their original tanks still operational at the end of the battle of Falaise, this does not mean that the rest had been lost" As I said Jason get the book and read it. Perhaps it would increase your understanding of the subject. German tanks/Stugs found at Mortain = 46. German tanks/Stugs found in Falaise pocket = 320. German tanks/stugs found west of the Seine = 150 total 516

Well *gasp* I have done that. Extensively and in considerable detail on the British/German side. However most German records were lost in the retreat so there are few, if any, difinitive accounts of German losses. 'Grand statistics' do not help with individual losses but they come in handy for setting the parameters for the scale of losses. From them we know that the Allied tank loss rate OVERALL was roughly twice the German losses. Then the absurdity of sweeping statements (asserting that US tank Units destroyed more Panzers than they lost Shermans) is exposed for all to see. The German August loss figures will never be fully catalogued and no amount of 'reading' will solve the problem.

Oh really? I would call it the 'JasonC and his fantasy 'US Shermans always won' thread

So then you believe 450 PzIV's lost in one 2 week period? Now that is what I would call silly. Thats what happens when you have a 'belief'. Facts are twisted to suit it. Thaks for that but I have the book. Perhaps you should get it and read all of it? I find it ironic that someone would use Zetterling's 'Normandy 1944' book to try and show how badly they Panzers fared. This book should really be called ' Facts to show how the German performance in Normandy was excellent and much better than previously believed'. Yet you use it the other way around! Do you dispute the 2000+Allied tank loss by mid August? Can you please show me the data (website?) that shows the 'heavies' scored more than the PzIV's in Normandy? PS. If you want really good info on SS Units in Normandy let me recommend Wood and Dugdales 'Order Of Battle, Waffen ss Panzer Units In Normandy 1944. Thid book prints the original German documentation in great detail. Far better than any gamer or intenet site ever could. No you just bend it, miss bits out and ignore the loss figures for the Allies given in the same book because it doesn't fit your 'belief' [ October 31, 2006, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

Germans losses June,July: 264 PzIV 205 Panthers 33 Tigers 95 Stug 598 in 8 weeks. losses by August 13 (using the mumbo jumbo method invented by JasonC to bolster his 'theory') PzIV: 718 - 264 = 454 So in 8 weeks of fighting 264 PzIV are destroyed. In 13 days of August 454 are lost! By the way the final adjusted German figures for Normandy (compiled in September) list 916 PzIV lost so up to the end of September (6 weeks) 198 PzIV lost. Thus: 8 weeks = 264 (33 a week) 2 weeks = 454 (227 a week) 6 weeks = 198 (33 a week) Wow! using Jasons figs sure does give a mighty fine score. To get this idiotic total you simply concentrate on the combat ready strength and totaly ignore those in repair. These 'in repair' vehicles are rarely listed for late July or August but in earlier times are always a significant proportion of the total. Overall Germany lost some 1800 tanks in Normandy and no one disputes this. Trying to cram the majority into a 2 week period stretches credulity. Using the same method for Panther losses would place most of them into this 2 week window as well. Back to reality. Using what data? But they do if you stretch the time limit to August 20. 9 days later and your own figures, plucked from thin air to bolster your position, end up proving the opposite! The hard data to August 20 says it is possible. You 'guess' the data for August 11th remember. Stop inventing arguments so you can refute them. I never said they racked up multiple kills. I say the exchange rate was 2:1 in the Germans favour. Your statement that US tanks always got a better exchange rate against the Panzers is wrong.

I have no idea but in June and July Britain and the USA lost 870 Shermans (UK 459,US 411). Germany lost 274 Pz IV's. There were some 400 other Allied tanks lost plus a number of TD's. Germany also lost 242 Panthers and Tigers and 95 Stug. That would be ~1270 Allied losses to 611 German. No firm data for this time period but if we stretch to September then it is roughly 3200 Allied to 1845 German Impossible to quantify. Again impossible to seperate out these totals from the overall figures. Any attempt would be guesswork I have no idea and, I would venture to say, neither do you. I have tried here http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004995;p=4#000095 How about putting some of your research up for us to see if it can fill in some of the blanks? If........ but....... maybe........... Well so far you have not posted a single figure to confirm or back anything you have said. You challenge others to provide figures and yet seem unwilling to post any yourself!

It was a single volume and really I dont understand why you would need artists versions of photos, why not just the original photos? There were a number of glaring errors in the book and what Restayn seems to do is get several well known photos and roll them into one illustration. Good references ruined by adding his own interpretation of the subject. If you want lots of pretty pictures then I suppose the new volumes would be ideal.