T-34 Lifespan

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

No. Its simple. The Panzer fleet over the entire year shrank. You made such a big deal about it and now are showing you cant grasp the fact your wrong.

Again (I love saying Again!)

'So, since its so important to Bastables, the Germans did actually end the year with LESS operational AND available panzers than they started with!! 750 less available (uh, 26%) and 432 less operational (29%).'

You also do not want to grasp that the Germans were being pushed back 100s of miles!

Err no tits. Again even with the larger number of Jan 2803 Panzers the Dec number of 2053 panzers for the eastern front you have to add fig of 31 Dec 1943 Panzer/StuGs in the West 827 has to be added as does the med fig of 970. This results in a net gain for German Panzer/StuG fleet strength at the end of the year of 1943.

Also the Soviet tank fleet contracted while only fighting a "one" front war. The Soviets were losing the Armour attrition war.

Again tits the Soviets were not winning the armour attrition battle until the Anglo commonwealth landings in 1944 Normandy and the consequent drive through Western Europe.

Again you have managed to miss the point

[ December 27, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

No. Its simple. The Panzer fleet over the entire year shrank. You made such a big deal about it and now are showing you cant grasp the fact your wrong.

Again (I love saying Again!)

'So, since its so important to Bastables, the Germans did actually end the year with LESS operational AND available panzers than they started with!! 750 less available (uh, 26%) and 432 less operational (29%).'

You also do not want to grasp that the Germans were being pushed back 100s of miles!

Err no tits. Again even with the larger number of Jan 2803 Panzers the Dec number of 2053 panzers for the eastern front you have to add fig of 31 Dec 1943 Panzer/StuGs in the West 827 has to be added as does the med fig of 970. This results in a net gain for German Panzer/StuG fleet strength at the end of the year of 1943.

Also the Soviet tank fleet contracted while only fighting a "one" front war. The Soviets were losing the Armour attrition war. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

German vs. Soviet AFV losses - 1941-45.

Period: Ratio: Period: Ratio:

06/41-02/42 1:5.0 12/43-06/44 1:1.4

03/42-05/42 1:6.6 07/44 1:4.0

06/42-10/42 1:7.9 08/44 1:2.0

11/42-03/43 1:1.3 09/44 1:1.0

04/43-08/43 1:5.7 10/43-11/44 1:1.3

09/43-11/43 1:2.5 - -

I copied this from

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/prod.htm

Notice the reduction in kill ratio during 09/43-06/44 (uh, before Normandys losses). Uh whats this? Kill ratio goes up during Normandy?

This data seems to support my 'unusual' theory. The soviets pushed big after taking horrendous losses at Kursk. They knew they could make the tanks and they used them.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

[

Also the Soviet tank fleet contracted while only fighting a "one" front war. The Soviets were losing the Armour attrition war. [/qb]

I think everyone feels you are grasping. You are adding in east and west? Again: You want to add East and West? WAHAHAHAHA!!!! [/QB]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

German vs. Soviet AFV losses - 1941-45.

Period: Ratio: Period: Ratio:

06/41-02/42 1:5.0 12/43-06/44 1:1.4

03/42-05/42 1:6.6 07/44 1:4.0

06/42-10/42 1:7.9 08/44 1:2.0

11/42-03/43 1:1.3 09/44 1:1.0

04/43-08/43 1:5.7 10/43-11/44 1:1.3

09/43-11/43 1:2.5 - -

I copied this from

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/prod.htm

Notice the reduction in kill ratio during 09/43-06/44 (uh, before Normandys losses). Uh whats this? Kill ratio goes up during Normandy?

This data seems to support my 'unusual' theory. The soviets pushed big after taking horrendous losses at Kursk. They knew they could make the tanks and they used them.

Again missing the point (or twisting data). The latter half of 1943 and the first half of 1944 saw less soviet tanks to blow up because they (Soviets) were low on numbers and wished to husband their tank strength and rebuild after the catastrophic (for soviet tank strength) "summer" offensives and counter offensives. Both the Soviets and the Germans preferred committing tank units to their own major attacks or counter offensives so when fighting tails off so do casualties, surprise surprise.

[Mr. Tittles]

Again, with the 'missing points'.

Its pretty obvious that you want to change the focus of the discussion because you can't handle being wrong about something.

I am discussing the Eastern Front and the Soviet post-Kursk actions.

The name of the thread is T34 Lifespan.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Again, with the 'missing points'.

Its pretty obvious that you want to change the focus of the discussion because you can't handle being wrong about something.

I am discussing the Eastern Front and the Soviet post-Kursk actions.

The name of the thread is T34 Lifespan.

Again you've managed to miss the point

I've been pointing out that your generalised quackery of the Soviets winning the armour attrition battle in 1943 is in fact false.

[ December 27, 2003, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Mr. Tittles]

How did the Soviets magically move those front lines towards Germany?

This is getting too easy.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

How did the Soviets magically move those front lines towards Germany?

This is getting too easy.

Still managing to lose the point by looking at other shiny things my dear little tit

First you incorrectly rabbit on about attrition then now land grabbing, yet you yourself point out that this should be about T-34 lifespan. At least when you make your little pronouncement insure that they are researched or at least understood by yourself

By losing the attrition war in favour of land grabbing. A silly idea if the German did not have to contend with the allies in the west.

Again if the Soviet armour fleet contracted (by 62 percent) where as the German armour fleet sees a net gain how is one winning the armour battle of attrition. They don't, the soviets were losing the war of attrition in 1943. Just to hammer you over the head again with the point this all gives lie to your pronouncements that the Soviets were winning the attrition battle.

You'd also be much better served by dropping all this self love and preening you seem to enjoy displaying in "public" and actually research your argument as opposed to vague incorrect waffling.

[Mr. Tittles]

I never said they 'won the war of attrition'. Thats a Bastablism. You often misdirect threads and try to put words in other peoples mouths.

I said:

Actually, most of 1943 was a showdown. The Germans big show was Kursk but the armored battles raged in intensity for most of the year. The Germans were being bled and the Soviets were willing to practice attrition as long as both sides bled. They prosecuted this strategy with T34/76 mostly. They knew that changing over a model design during this time would give the Germans a break. The Germans, with the new Panther, old Panzer IV and limited Tigers, were changing horses at the wrong time.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I never said they 'won the war of attrition'. Thats a Bastablism. You often misdirect threads and try to put words in other peoples mouths.

I said:

Actually, most of 1943 was a showdown. The Germans big show was Kursk but the armored battles raged in intensity for most of the year. The Germans were being bled and the Soviets were willing to practice attrition as long as both sides bled. They prosecuted this strategy with T34/76 mostly. They knew that changing over a model design during this time would give the Germans a break. The Germans, with the new Panther, old Panzer IV and limited Tigers, were changing horses at the wrong time.

Re-read the your replies including this one "T34s were possibly being manufactured at a greater rate? I guess that’s how I would win a war of attrition." This is when the attrition war became a focus. We continued down that "conversation" line. Including your manic baseball mascott attempts to defend a position, which you would now like me to believe you never held.

You also forget to mention that the Soviets wanted to change horses but the problems with the manufacture of the 8,5cm tank gun became a bottleneck.

Again if the German tank fleet sees a net gain and the Soviet tank fleet has a net loss (62%) in spite of higher production then who is losing the war of attrition? Also the lopsided figures can also be explained due to the fact that the Germans changed to better "horses" while the Soviets could not due to an overstressed industrial sector.

[ December 27, 2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Mr. Tittles]

Again missing the point (or twisting data). The latter half of 1943 and the first half of 1944 saw less soviet tanks to blow up because they (Soviets) were low on numbers and wished to husband their tank strength and rebuild after the catastrophic (for soviet tank strength) "summer" offensives and counter offensives. Both the Soviets and the Germans preferred committing tank units to their own major attacks or counter offensives so when fighting tails off so do casualties, surprise surprise.

The later half of 43 saw a tail off in fighting? The German operational panzer numbers got beat down to 30% (600 odd panzers roaming around the whole eastern front?) by a tail off?????

Great stuff Bastables.

[Mr. Tittles]

I never said they won the war of attrition. They started a war of attrition and did so on the belief that they could outproduce the Germans. Thats how anyone would win a war of attrition.

They could have also falsely hoped the other fronts would open up.

But my main point (you can miss it or not, doesnt matter), was that they kept the T34/76 MBT and decided that attacking was the best course of action.

[ December 27, 2003, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Again missing the point (or twisting data). The latter half of 1943 and the first half of 1944 saw less soviet tanks to blow up because they (Soviets) were low on numbers and wished to husband their tank strength and rebuild after the catastrophic (for soviet tank strength) "summer" offensives and counter offensives. Both the Soviets and the Germans preferred committing tank units to their own major attacks or counter offensives so when fighting tails off so do casualties, surprise surprise.

The later half of 43 saw a tail off in fighting? The German operational panzer numbers got beat down to 30% (600 odd panzers roaming around the whole eastern front?) by a tail off?????

Great stuff Bastables.

You do realise it was the muddy period and what that effect that has on operational tanks don't you? Please do show how this shows that the Russian tank fleet was better off after a total loss of 62% of their total fleet versus an increase in the German tank fleet.

It also ignores the damage that a 50% operatioanl Panzer div can do to full strength Soviet tank army ala Kursk or even the orel counter offencives.

Oh wait a min I guess you won't actully deal with the issue. You would prefer carrying out mor manic antics to "please" the crowd.

[Mr. Tittles]

Heres some more info regarding tank retrieval. Hopefully, Bastables will not think its directed at him (has a tendency to I suspect).

Such disparity in an Eastern Front battle is not terribly surprising in light of such Soviet catastrophes as the Kiev pocket in 1941. Yet Kursk was not a meatgrinder for either army, despite its portrayal as a decisive battle. In 1943, Germany suffered 1.6 million casualties on the Eastern front; the 56,000 German casualties at Kursk accounted for only 3 percent of that total. Russia endured a staggering 7.8 million casualties in this period, with the 178,000 Soviet casualties at Kursk only comprising 2.3 percent of this total. The authors suggest that that the bloody fighting really began after Kursk, when the Soviets relentlessly pushed the Wehrmacht across the Ukraine.

Zetterling and Frankson seem more comfortable with obtaining statistics than in analyzing them. Yet embedded in their numbers are numerous interesting facts. For example, military theory holds that the attacker normally suffers more losses than the defender. Yet superior German tactical skill created the reverse at Kursk. On the attack, the panzers could conquer the battlefield and recover damaged vehicles. It was in the retreat after Kursk, when any vehicle that couldn't move was abandoned, that tank losses mounted.

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com/html/Kursk1943.shtml

[ December 27, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Mr. Tittles]

You do realise it was the muddy period and what that effect that has on operational tanks don't you? Please do show how this shows that the Russian tank fleet was better off after a total loss of 62% of their total fleet versus an increase in the German tank fleet.

It also ignores the damage that a 50% operatioanl Panzer div can do to full strength Soviet tank army ala Kursk or even the orel counter offencives.

Oh wait a min I guess you won't actully deal with the issue. You would prefer carrying out mor manic antics to "please" the crowd.

Mud huh? Germans were at 50% operational at Kursk (dont bother reading the previous threads but it was a wee bit higher..)? Germans sent panzers to the west because they didnt want them getting muddy? They retreated because they wanted to?

Great stuff.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

You do realise it was the muddy period and what that effect that has on operational tanks don't you? Please do show how this shows that the Russian tank fleet was better off after a total loss of 62% of their total fleet versus an increase in the German tank fleet.

It also ignores the damage that a 50% operatioanl Panzer div can do to full strength Soviet tank army ala Kursk or even the orel counter offencives.

Oh wait a min I guess you won't actully deal with the issue. You would prefer carrying out mor manic antics to "please" the crowd.

Mud huh? Germans were at 50% operational at Kursk (dont bother reading the previous threads but it was a wee bit higher..)? Germans sent panzers to the west because they didnt want them getting muddy? They retreated because they wanted to?

Great stuff.

Again missed the points time and time again. Re-read the thread

[Mr. Tittles]

Again:

In January the Germans were about 53% Operational. They built up to 88% Operational for Kursk (impressive).

Just for you Bastables, in case you missed it.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Such disparity in an Eastern Front battle is not terribly surprising in light of such Soviet catastrophes as the Kiev pocket in 1941. Yet Kursk was not a meatgrinder for either army, despite its portrayal as a decisive battle. In 1943, Germany suffered 1.6 million casualties on the Eastern front; the 56,000 German casualties at Kursk accounted for only 3 percent of that total. Russia endured a staggering 7.8 million casualties in this period, with the 178,000 Soviet casualties at Kursk only comprising 2.3 percent of this total. The authors suggest that that the bloody fighting really began after Kursk, when the Soviets relentlessly pushed the Wehrmacht across the Ukraine.

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com/html/Kursk1943.shtml

I have that Book. perhaps you should actually read it and then would not hold the silly conclusion that the Russians were winning the armour attrition war. Zetterling is where I cam across the idea that the attrition war was not being won by the Soviets in 1943; in many ways it was the opposite. Why are you referring me to a book that fundamentally disagrees with several of the pronouncements you've made? note to tits actully read the book before presenting them as eveidence

Infantry Attrition was not high (relative for the entire eastern front, bloody enough for the units gutted at Kursk though) but tank losses for the Soviets where very high, Zetterling in the book points out that because of Kursk the Soviets lost 3 months of tank production in over a week where as the Germans could easily replace their hand full of total losses with less than a months worth of production

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Again:

In January the Germans were about 53% Operational. They built up to 88% Operational for Kursk (impressive).

Just for you Bastables, in case you missed it.

The got more of them running prior to a major offensive? Good god why don't all armies do this Oh wait everyone did……….

None of this silly fascination with “new” tit information has any thing to do with the

1943 Soviet tank fleet net contraction

German tank fleet net gain= Soviets actually losing the armour attrition “war” in 1943

[Mr. Tittles]

Again, never said they won the war of attrition. Thats something that you came up with.

Would you be better off just arguing with yourself? Seems you don't need anyone since you conjure up assertions anyway?

Look. You are trying too hard. You made blunders and got snagged. Be a man instead of trying to be a weasel.

[Mr. Tittles]

Operational armor in Panzer divisions east front including stug-PIV-PV-Tiger

May 31 1944

Total 1103

Damn that mud.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Again, never said they won the war of attrition. Thats something that you came up with.

Would you be better off just arguing with yourself? Seems you don't need anyone since you conjure up assertions anyway?

Look. You are trying too hard. You made blunders and got snagged. Be a man instead of trying to be a weasel.

Of course the final backslide, your vague pronouncement is shown to be unsupported so now you say you never held it. Your idiotic capering defence of it also makes sense because you could not back you argument up with anything other than general silliness an red herrings. Including that final one of quoting a synopsis of a Book and authors that disagree with your incorrect pronouncements, real master stroke that one.

Again you ignore German tank fleet net gain + Soviet tank fleet net loss= Soviets losing the attrition war. Without the fears of and actual allied landing in France + the Med, 1944 would have been another bad year for Soviets.

Gaining ground while losing more men/equipment in total and as a percentage than the enemy is not losing the attrition war tits. Zetterling and Anderson point this out as well.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Operational armor in Panzer divisions east front including stug-PIV-PV-Tiger

May 31 1944

Total 1103

Damn that mud.

Forgot all the StuGs and Jadgpanzers not in Panzer units?

Forgot to make a worthwhile comparison with Soviet units

Forgot to factor in all the Panzers now in the west and about to engage the landings? Forgot about the ones in the Med?

Forgot about my point that the Attrition war did no turn until 1944 due to Germany having to worry about a three front war?

Forgot about how your pronouncement and argument on the T-34s helping to win the attrition war in 1943 are false?

Damm ADD mind

[Mr. Tittles]

Thats good, good, bastables, now answer yourself and get a good conversation going. Don't forget to misquote yourself and add stugs in italy to the eastern front! 'cause the soviets were prosecuting a war of attrition against the italian front too right?