Guns vs Armour

[JasonC]

Lying again, adding an "in Normandy" that I didn't say.

Two occasions the Germans sent meaningful amounts of armor to the west - Normandy and the Bulge. Both last about a month and a half. In the first, the US faces small scale armor counterattacks 3 times and TDs are there to stop 2 of them (17th SS early one with a single StuG battalion, they weren't there yet in any meaningful amounts). In the second, TDs rock as fully explained in the bulk of the thread.

As for the rest of the time, 3rd Army faces a much smaller amount of armor in Lorraine, and it is handled very poorly, and the TDs rock. Otherwise, there is no meaningful armor facing the Americans and the towed TDs are cannabilized for riflemen and the SP TDs are used as extra MBTs, for lack of anything else to shoot at.

So now we have quotes about the towed ATGs being spun as arguments that the SP TDs failed in some way, in the very paragraphs that explain the SP TDs were doing well. Why? Because any straw will be grasped at rather than admit the obvious, that SP TDs simply did not fail in their mission of stopping German armor attacks.

By now everyone knows this, even the silly person. But silly people are, well, silly.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Do the original 71, 72 source AARs more precisely breakdown the 306 'tanks' between SP and towed?

The mistake that causes most confusion in this area is the attempt to treat claims as if they are kills. The two rarely inhabit the same planet.

[JonS]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS

Except that, as Gabel himself points out with his examples (p.60 onwards), in NWE they clearly were not prevented from fulfilling their intended role by any of the above, because they did fulfil their intended role 'whenever the German armor came out in force'.

To say this with authority you would have to know the number of Panzers destroyed by the TD's. I have never come across such information.</font>

[Wicky]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wicky:

Do the original 71, 72 source AARs more precisely breakdown the 306 'tanks' between SP and towed?

The mistake that causes most confusion in this area is the attempt to treat claims as if they are kills. The two rarely inhabit the same planet. </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

From the Introduction:

The flaws inherent in tank destroyer doctrine, rather than the misuse of tank destroyers by higher commanders or deficiencies in equipment, prevented the tank destroyers from fulfilling their intended role.

You assume from this that Gabel means failure but you can't find the actual word.</font>

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Lying again, adding an "in Normandy" that I didn't say.

I give the figures for June to January dummy. I gave complete information on the total number of Tanks/panzers/AFV's (that better?)for the 7 months for which we have good data.

Obviously you are confused by the use of sources because you never seem to have any contact with them yourself

As for the rest of the time, 3rd Army faces a much smaller amount of armor in Lorraine, and it is handled very poorly, and the TDs rock.

Is this the same 3rd Army that destroyed 90% of the German Army in the West? The same 3rd Army that ko'd more tanks than the Germans actualy fielded against them? One wonders why anyone else bothered turning up because the claims they made account for nearly everything. They must have had really good statisticians working for them.

So now we have quotes about the towed ATGs being spun as arguments that the SP TDs failed in some way, in the very paragraphs that explain the SP TDs were doing well. Why? Because any straw will be grasped at rather than admit the obvious, that SP TDs simply did not fail in their mission of stopping German armor attacks.

Now't to do with me Jason lad. I never mentioned it and it was not raised to try and claim anthing of the above. Read more carefully before you spout off

By now everyone knows this, even the silly person. But silly people are, well, silly.

By now you must realise I won't rise to your baiting. Is this because I spurned your advances in the last email?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Wicky:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wicky:

Do the original 71, 72 source AARs more precisely breakdown the 306 'tanks' between SP and towed?

The mistake that causes most confusion in this area is the attempt to treat claims as if they are kills. The two rarely inhabit the same planet. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

dummy...

Obviously you are confused by the use of sources because you never seem to have any contact with them yourself ...Now't to do with me Jason lad... Read more carefully before you spout off

and then...

By now you must realise I won't rise to your baiting. Is this because I spurned your advances in the last email?

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.

[michael kenny]

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'

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.

[michael kenny]

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 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?

[JonS]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Yes he uses the word failure but what do the qualifiers 'concept' 'doctrine' and 'doctrinal concept' mean in 3 of those sentences?

In the context of this thread, they mean pretty much everything. In relation to me saying that Gabel claimed the TDs were a failure, they mean absolutely everything.

Let's turn back the clock, adding context where necessary in [square brackets]. I said:

Jon:

Yet despite [bulk evidence that the TDs succeded in their primary role] Gabel thinks they failed.

That got your panties in a bunch and you said:

Kenny:

[Gabel] says no such thing.

To which I responded with this quote from Gabel:

Jon, quoting Gabel:

The flaws inherent in tank destroyer doctrine, rather than the misuse of tank destroyers by higher commanders or deficiencies in equipment, prevented the tank destroyers from fulfilling their intended role.

I used that as a pretty good overview of Gabels belief that the TDs (and recall, in this thread we are talking about the SPs in particular, not really the whole TD arm) "failed." Given that it comes from the Introduction - which is Gabels overview of his own thesis I should think that a reasonable deduction to make. However, you chose to get your panties in an even bigger bunch and responded with:

Kenny:

You assume from this that Gabel means failure but you can't find the actual word.

Well, by gum, yes I do think that saying something was "prevented from fulfilling their intended role" is tantamount to calling it a failure, even though the magic word isn't in there. It's called interpretation. I interpreted that quote in terms of the overall thrust of Gabels thesis. But that isn't good enough for a narrowminded literalist. If the magic word isn't in there, it doesn't mean what it clearly says.

*sigh*

Ok, so fine. We'll play it your way. I did a word search and waddayaknow. Gabel does use the magic word On several occasions. But now that isn't good enough because ... who knows why?

Once more, from the top:

1) conventional wisdom is that the SP TDs were a failure in their primary role (countering German armoured attacks). Gabel repeats this conventional wisdom, as the quotes show.

2) ..

Nah, forget it. I've come across more responsive brick walls. You should talk to Stalin's Organist; he rejoices in the same kind of witless sophistry that you appear to adore. You two should have a great time.

Corvidae, I'll take that beer now.

Edit: It just occurred to me that the elephant in the corner of Gabel's thesis might not be apparent. His evidence of the performance of the SP TDs in NWE is that they were a success. His conclusion based on that - and, to be fair, other - evidence is that the TDs were a failure. I have used Gabel's evidence to add credence to Jason's theory. Since his conclusion flies in the face of his evidence I've tried to avoid it, except when it is claimed that Gabel didn't say what he clearly did as a conclusion.

[ January 02, 2007, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

You seem to believe that once Jason speaks on a subject then the onus is on everyone to show why he is wrong.

Strawman, and not a very good one as even a superficial examination of the record will show.

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.

Gross misrepresentation of what has gone on here. That you would stoop to that does you absolutely no credit.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 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? </font>

[michael kenny]

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.

[coe]

*** hits head on the table repeatedly*** :mad: :mad:

ON a personal note I'd still like to be pointed to a source which specifically states the doctrinal role ...

Yes I agree TDs destroyed tanks. In that respect anything that destroyed tanks was a TD. If you can go with a screwdriver and unscrew the bolts on a tank and make it fall apart you are a tank destroyer

[Corvidae]

Originally posted by Wicky:

What if the US/allies had built a 'JagdSherman' ??

www.b5tech.org/forum - Jackknife - Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:55 am

Shame we can't edit it into CM for testing. BFC please fix or sumfink....

What would the specs be on that baby?

Main gun looks like a 76.2mm/L70 something or thereabouts.

Secondary armament, you show a flex mount .50 cal.

Bow plate is 45 degrees or lower, and what? 4 inches thick? at least.

It would be slow and heavy.

[Wicky]

"Jackknife" the designer of the hypothetical 'JagdSherman' writes about the specs in the www.b5tech.org forum link 3/4 of the way down.

Front plate at least 5", 90mm M3 Gun, 32-37 tons, low profile

I agree in retrospect that extra co-ax MG would have been useful.

[michael kenny]

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

Originally posted by JasonC:

Lying again, adding an "in Normandy" that I didn't say.

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?

[Corvidae]

Wicky, Ah yes, I read the article After I posted.

Guess I should have done that first. My oops.

Its a monster

A co axial MG ??? I dunno, maybe a remote MG would be better. Like that thing on the hetzer, only better designed.

Deployment? In platoons of 4, with attached assult infantry platoon in attendance.

(American panzer grenadiers basicly.)

In a specialized company (assult company?)

Assult company =

Co HQ

Jagdsherman platoon, X1

Assult infantry platoon, X1

Infantry platoon, X2

Hvy weapons section, X2

Give assult company priority for regimental level artilery support.

[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?

2)Did any allied tank destroyers kill any axis tanks?

3)Did any allied tank destroyers score multiple kills over the war?

4)Were allied tank destroyers able to kill axis medium AFVs?

5)Were allied tank destroyers able to kill axis heavy AFVs?

6)Would you agree that allied tank destroyers were best used as defensive weapons for blunting axis armored spearheads?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

I poted this:

"85% of ammo used in Normandy was HE"

to get:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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

Originally posted by JasonC:

Lying again, adding an "in Normandy" that I didn't say.

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? </font>

[michael kenny]

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'

[michael kenny]

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.

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?

[JonS]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

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.

* In literal terms, the M10 has less armour than the M4. n people grok that.

* In practical terms, the difference is irrelevant. n-1 people grok that.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JonS:

In literal terms, the M10 has less armour than the M4.

In practical terms, the difference is irrelevant.

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?