Tango01 | 05 Aug 2016 12:59 p.m. PST |
"Before you guys start whining about Communist propaganda, SS asked me to do this, and The_Chieftain (WGA's historian) put in his corrections into the list, as well as various posters of the World of Tanks NA forums. Some of these should be familiar to you, while others are a little more obscure. Still, don't repeat them!…" See here link Amicalement Armand |
Vigilant | 05 Aug 2016 1:15 p.m. PST |
Don't waste your time reading this, most of it is incorrect and the responses are the usual uninformed flames. |
VVV reply | 05 Aug 2016 2:59 p.m. PST |
Well that link was a load of tosh. Sherman 75's could deal with Tigers! Beats me why they brought in the Sherman 76 then. |
By John 54 | 05 Aug 2016 3:30 p.m. PST |
I still snigger when I read about a stuffy tank-nerd called 'the Chieftain' teeheehee. John |
Mark 1 | 05 Aug 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
I still snigger when I read about a stuffy tank-nerd called 'the Chieftain' teeheehee. Why? If you prefer, you can refer to him as Nicolas Moran, Maj, USArmy National Guard/Reserve.
Here he is, pictured in Afghanistan, when we was a Captain on the Ops staff in the US Army 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (11th ACR). (If you are wondering at the vehicle in the pic, I believe it is an AMX-10P. He served as liaison officer from 11th ACR to the French forces in the adjacent AO.) He also commanded a platoon of M1A2 Abrams tanks in Iraq in a prior deployment. I have some hesitation calling a man like that a "stuffy tank nerd". Although he would probably be amused at the term. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Saber6 | 05 Aug 2016 5:37 p.m. PST |
|
Mobius | 05 Aug 2016 6:48 p.m. PST |
I have a problem with his attempt in addressing some of those myths and using posts on Archive Awareness to disprove them. He does work with World of Tanks so doesn't try to make waves with their Russian bias. I added research section of my website to dispute some of what was posted over at For the Records and Archive Awareness and I see it linked to in topics at WOT and War Thunder. |
Blutarski | 05 Aug 2016 7:39 p.m. PST |
"Chieftain" is a shameless Sherman cheerleader, right down to the pom-poms and double-thick rose-colored glasses. Don't get me wrong. The Sherman tank had a lot of good qualities as a weapon system, but NOT in the anti-armor role against heavy MkV/VI German tanks. B |
Rod I Robertson | 05 Aug 2016 7:57 p.m. PST |
The Ronson argument is weak as the writer links the Ronson name to just one post-war slogan. Ronson lighters were known for other inflammable claims before the war as is evidenced by this poster from 1931.
So perhaps it was an earlier slogan which set the name to the Sherman. The phrase "tommy-cooker" was used too for many commonwealth tanks but often applied to the Sherman. I am old enough and lucky enough to have spoken to a few Canadian and one German tanker from WWII and they all held the view that petrol powered Shermans were prone to burn, despite the introduction of wet-storage for ammo. And that perception guided their decisions and actions. So the perception as well as the truth must be evaluated to fully explain the Ronson myth. They also had great misgivings about the ability of a 75mm gun to defeat the frontal armour of Panthers and Tigers as well as heavier tank hunters and assault guns. Only well placed shots near turret rings and under gun mantles would work, they believed. And since all tanks encountered were assumed to be Tigers they were a very nervous lot. That's why they used smoke so much. They would smoke off the enemy tank wherever it was located or moved to and would try to work their way around it to get flank shots. There are some myths on the list which maybe less mythical than the Chieftain/Major Moran claims, but given his expertise and my lack thereof, I will keep an open mind to his arguments and assertions. Cheers. Rod Robertson. |
john lacour | 05 Aug 2016 9:54 p.m. PST |
I love how the comments section quickly devolves into profanity and "I did'nt say that, I said…" And gotta love how Steve Zeloga is mentioned as the top expert in , well, everything. The same guy who will tell you that, to this day, auto loaders in russian tanks try to rip the gunners arms out, and, with a straight face, how soviet soldiers only carried 2 or 3 mags for thier ak's in Afghanistan. I've met the man several times. He's an arrogant t urd. |
christot | 06 Aug 2016 1:55 a.m. PST |
I'm sure he speaks very highly of you…. |
christot | 06 Aug 2016 2:10 a.m. PST |
As for Moran, (to mangle a phrase), in the kingdom of the blind WOT fan-bois, the one-eyed man is king..none of what he triumphs as his insightful, little-known and original thought is any of that, its fairly common knowledge to the moderately well informed or read. He is highly adept at splitting hairs and focusing on one detail while ignoring others in order to support larger theories, which is a pretty good recipe to become an internet hero. |
Fred Cartwright | 06 Aug 2016 2:32 a.m. PST |
Seems pretty standard for the "Chietain's" stuff. I have seen his video too. Much of it is not new and the myths have been debunked before. Some of it is inaccurate. His data comparing the 17pdr and US 76mm appeared to be dodgy. He seems to be comparing penetration of the 76mm HVAP round vs the APCBC round of the 17pdr while claiming the 17pdr firing APDS couldn't hit anything. In fact the APCBC round of the 17pdr was superior to the US HVAP round at all ranges. |
Marc33594 | 06 Aug 2016 7:30 a.m. PST |
Whatever the perception the fact is the gasoline engine was not the prime factor in the Sherman's reputation for burning. Studies showed fairly conclusively that it was the stowage of the ammunition which was the culprit. Few facts to ponder. The M4A2, which was diesel powered, had no better a reputation despite being diesel powered. The number of Shermans destroyed by fire went down significantly with the introduction of the wet stowage system. Studies at the end of the war showed that it wasnt the wet stowage which was responsible but the change in the positioning of the ammunition out of vulnerable areas like the sponsons. |
Blutarski | 06 Aug 2016 7:42 a.m. PST |
Well, "Chieftain" must have missed the lecture on the brittleness/breakage problems of standard US 76mm AP round (similar to that suffered by the British 2pdr AP in N Africa). In his book on the Panther, Jentz gives the results of German Oct 1944 Wa Pruef tests evaluating the survivability of the Panther against attack by various Allied guns. The results are based upon the tank target being situated at 30deg to the line of fire: Gun --------------US 76mm APC------17Pdr APCBC Front: Turret------------700 m------------1600 m Mantlet-----------100 m------------2500 m Glacis------------0 m--------------0 m Nose--------------0 m--------------2500 m Side: Turret------------3500 m-----------2500 m Superstructure----2800 m-----------2500 m Hull--------------3500 m-----------2500 m Rear: Turret------------3500 m-----------2500 m Hull--------------3500 m-----------2500 m * Data unclear as to 3500 m vs 2500 m differential. What also annoys the daylights out of me is the constant reference made to Arracourt – where a raw, barely trained force of German armor, organized into brigades lacking in infantry and artillery support, attacked into hilly wooded terrain under poor visibility conditions and were soundly thrashed by elements of a veteran US armored division – as definitive proof of the ability of the Sherman to tackle heavy German armor.
But no one wants to discuss the much more typical action at Puffendorf. B |
christot | 06 Aug 2016 7:43 a.m. PST |
"Whatever the perception the fact is the gasoline engine was not the prime factor in the Sherman's reputation for burning. Studies showed fairly conclusively that it was the stowage of the ammunition which was the culprit." As i said, he splits hairs and ignores the crucial point in order to make an irrelevant one displaying his "knowledge": Shermans DID burn excessively for the major part of the war, whether it is was because of ammo stowage or fuel is pretty much irrelevant points scoring (particularly if you were insde a sherman). |
Mobius | 06 Aug 2016 7:54 a.m. PST |
One way gas or diesel could start fires or explosion is their location. The Soviet T-34 was found to have a much higher rate of internal explosions than other tanks. The Soviets conducted some tests to find out why, link The bottom line fuel tanks tended to explode from penetration when 10-20% full. Full tanks not so much. |
Mobius | 06 Aug 2016 8:06 a.m. PST |
But no one wants to discuss the much more typical action at Puffendorf. Or the interesting action at Fontenay and Rauray: panzer-war.com/page45.html |
Marc33594 | 06 Aug 2016 8:11 a.m. PST |
Christot. According to most reports the Sherman did not burn anymore "excessively" then other tanks. The fact that the Sherman was so prevalent means one would see more of them. |
Patrick R | 06 Aug 2016 9:46 a.m. PST |
What also annoys the daylights out of me is the constant reference made to Arracourt – where a raw, barely trained force of German armor, organized into brigades lacking in infantry and artillery support, attacked into hilly wooded terrain under poor visibility conditions and were soundly thrashed by elements of a veteran US armored division – as definitive proof of the ability of the Sherman to tackle heavy German armor. Try to watch one History Channel "Hitler" documentary daily and at least one chapter of Sven Hassel before going to sleep. When wargaming try using more King Tigers or if available Maus tanks or "rare prototypes" that never existed. If symptoms persist you can use your 1/6th scale action figures and pretend they are Aryan demigods who can rip through steel with their bare hands. With a little luck the nightmares will subside. |
By John 54 | 06 Aug 2016 11:13 a.m. PST |
I repeat, given the above, 'The Chieftain' makes me chortle. John |
mkenny | 06 Aug 2016 12:03 p.m. PST |
But no one wants to discuss the much more typical action at Puffendorf. I did and it turns out Puffendorf does not live up to the hype. link |
Blutarski | 06 Aug 2016 1:21 p.m. PST |
Patrick R: Are these your favorites? I'll keep them in mind if I ever decide to become a nazi fanboy. MKenny: Suggest you go here – PDF link B |
mkenny | 06 Aug 2016 2:08 p.m. PST |
MKenny: Suggest you go here – I did and saw a half a page (324) that mentions Puffendorf and cited the usual claim '58 tanks' were knocked out. If you bothered to read the linked AHF thread (as I read your link) you will see I use primary sources that list 2nd AD tank losses that are significantly lower than this '58' figure. There is no comparison between your linked pdf and the several Unit documents I posted at AHF. My linked sources absolutely disprove the claim that 58 US tanks were lost. |
Fred Cartwright | 06 Aug 2016 2:55 p.m. PST |
I repeat, given the above, 'The Chieftain' makes me chortle. Maybe he calls himself "The Chieftain" because he is slow, unreliable, too heavy, but with a big gun! :-) |
Blutarski | 06 Aug 2016 6:27 p.m. PST |
Thanks for your interest McKinney, but I will take the word of the professionals on this topic – link They worked with the very same archival reference materials that you cite. My bet is that the pros were far more likely to have gotten it right. Excerpt from the link - "The American tanks came off less creditably in the battle of the Roer plain. The tankers, deprived by the terrain and mud of their ability to outflank the enemy, by the congestion in the area of their usual artillery direct support, and by bad weather of much assistance from the air, had fought magnificently; but they had become disillusioned about the ability of their tanks to defeat German armor. "Our men no longer have as much confidence in their armor and guns as they used to have," one of the 2d Armored Division tankers said two days after the Roer plain offensive. Another said, "The Germans have been improving steadily ever since we met them in Sicily," and "Our Ordnance Department needs to get on the ball."22 This was not merely a momentary reaction from battle-weary men. After the war an Armored School report, prepared with the assistance of 2d Armored Division tank commanders who had participated in the action, stated that the most important factor in the set-back at Puffendorf on 17 November—"the biggest tank battle in 2nd Armored experience"—was "the inferiority of our tanks in guns, armor, and maneuverability." B
|
mkenny | 06 Aug 2016 7:18 p.m. PST |
Thanks for your interest McKinney, but I will take the word of the professionals on this topic – Just let me point out that this last link of yours is exactly the same work you posted in your last link but in a different format. Perhaps you thought this 'source' was so good you would use it twice. I stand by the AHF link which details US tank losses by the Units involved. It is clear all the claims made for 58 US tank losses at Puffendorf are false. . |
Blutarski | 06 Aug 2016 7:32 p.m. PST |
1 – You are apparently mistaking me for someone else, mkenny. I have never written a blog on Rauray in my life. 2 – You can stand by whatever you like; I choose to stand by the work of the professionals. Thanks again for your interest. B |
mkenny | 06 Aug 2016 7:36 p.m. PST |
You are apparently mistaking me for someone else, mkenny. I have never written a blog on Rauray in my life. Correct I mixed you up with someone else.Mistake rectified. We are all entitled to any version of history we want but we are not entitled to our version of the facts. [URL=https://imageshack.com/i/po0HV4q7j]
[/URL] The losses for TF1. 18 tanks destroyed in a 7 day period that includes the 1 day at Puffendorf. The 67 Armored Regiment AAR from Nov 1944 signed by CO Paul Disney. |
Wolfhag | 06 Aug 2016 8:21 p.m. PST |
Wow – you guys are too much. Any clickbait article that begins with "Common Myths", "Unknown Secrets", "How the movie stars lose pounds", etc should not be clicked on much less responded to. If you don't like the Chieftain watch his videos with the sound muted. He has done an excellent job at showing us stuff about the interior of armored vehicles that very few have. Personally I take all sources with a grain of salt, even first person accounts because they are very limited and sometimes only from one or two engagements. Mobius's stuff is pretty informative and it appears he has no allegiance or an axe to grind with anyone and quotes sources. He seems to state the facts and you come to your own conclusion. I despise the know it all condescending talking heads that lecture to us. Personally I feel it's almost impossible to designate a specific engagement or battle that can be used to definitively define WWII tank/infantry engagements. There are just too many variables and time frames. If you want to use the exception to the rule as a way to debate your point TMP is the place to do it. Really, I do appreciate all you guys and the diversity of opinion. I begrudgingly admit that are many with a wealth of knowledge greater than mine. I am truly humbled. Wolfhag
|
cosmicbank | 07 Aug 2016 5:53 a.m. PST |
You guys mean to say that the German didn't use alien tech to build base at the South Pole and go to the moon? |
Mobius | 08 Aug 2016 5:40 a.m. PST |
The losses for TF1. 18 tanks destroyed in a 7 day period that includes the 1 day at Puffendorf. The 67 Armored Regiment AAR from Nov 1944 signed by CO Paul Disney. When the other side claims an enemy tank KO'd it doesn't claim that it is irrecoverable or un-repairable which is all that is counted in the document. I think there is also several categories a damaged recovered tank falls into determined by the estimated time it would take to get it back in service. This is a way of splitting hairs to make it look like losses are not as bad as they seem. |
Marc33594 | 08 Aug 2016 6:30 a.m. PST |
I believe Wolfhag has it right. Highlighting 1 or 2 engagements is misleading. One could point out Villers-Bocage for instance and say that was indicative of the typical engagement. However looking at the whole picture is much more instructive. "A Survey of Tank Warfare in Europe from D-Day to 12 August 1944: British Operational Research Group (AORG) memorandum No. C6", drafted in May of 1952, covered the 2nd British Army from 6 June to 12 August and the 1st Canadian for 23 July to 11 August. It was designed to study armored actions. The following is from the study: "On the British sectors it will be seen that between 1,200 and 1,300 German tanks were put out of action. During this period the Second Army lost 1,267 tanks from all causes (records of DDME Stats Second Army), and it is estimated that the Canadian losses were of the order of 300 tanks. It is concluded that when the campaign in Normandy was well under way the 1st and 2nd Armies had four times as many tanks at their disposal as the enemy units opposing them. It is not likely that such a high numerical advantage was maintained in battle. The total losses of Allied tanks were only a little greater than the battle losses of the enemy, namely 1,600 as against 1,250--a ratio of approximately 1.3-to-one" And with all due respect Mobius have you ever served on a military staff? A vehicle, aircraft or ship which suffers damage but is returned to action is not a loss. It is not hair splitting nor a way of making losses look not as bad. |
mkenny | 08 Aug 2016 6:50 a.m. PST |
When the other side claims an enemy tank KO'd it doesn't claim that it is irrecoverable or un-repairable which is all that is counted in the document. I think there is also several categories a damaged recovered tank falls into determined by the estimated time it would take to get it back in service. This is a way of splitting hairs to make it look like losses are not as bad as they seem. There is a difference between a knocked out tank and a destroyed tank. The problems are caused by those who want to count every damaged Allied tank as a 'loss' but at the same time keep referencing special type of 'non-combat' panzer loss. Anyone who read my linked thread will see that the bulk of US tank casualties at Puffendorf were caused by the mud and even then the number still falls short of the claimed 58 for a 7 day period which includes the 1 day action at Puffendorf. I welcome anyone who says damaged tanks count as allowable 'kills' and expect to see this reflected in future posts where they now allow the Allies to claim (for example) 500 Tiger kill 'claims' for the 200 or so that served in Normandy. Given the very high number of Tigers that were in the workshops during June-Aug I would say 500 'claims' is on the conservative side. I am against splitting hairs but more so against routinely splitting German hairs but then crying foul when this method is used on all hairs. Bottom line is the claim of 58 knocked out US tanks at Puffendorf in a single day is not supported by any primary US documentation. |
Blutarski | 08 Aug 2016 9:06 a.m. PST |
It is truly amazing how many stupid people must have been working in the US Army's Historical Section to have gotten the Army's own loss data all so terribly wrong ….. even though having complete access not only to all official records and returns but also direct interview access to actual participants. Just wow. Talk about revisionist history. B |
christot | 08 Aug 2016 9:39 a.m. PST |
"500 Tiger kill 'claims' for the 200 or so that served in Normandy" lets split hairs: 200? I make it an absolute maximum of 12 TigerII and 126 TigerI…or 138. ;-) of which over 90% only fought against the British, Canadian, and Polish Forces |
Mobius | 08 Aug 2016 9:42 a.m. PST |
Didn't we just have a thread on this very forum about abandoning tanks that get hit by fire such that the crew perceives that the tank will burn? Well, isn't that being put out of action without the tank being a total loss? TMP link And with all due respect Marc336844 have you served in the German or Russian army during WW2? Do you not know they break down tank damage per days it will take to put the tank back into operation? link It is truly amazing how many stupid people must have been working in the US Army's Historical Section to have gotten the Army's own loss data all so terribly wrong ….. even though having complete access not only to all official records and returns but also direct interview access to actual participants. And it's truly amazing that the US or any other Army ever, ever made one numeric mistake in their entire history. Didn't the Army put in one of its manuals that during WW2 it took an average of 13 shots from a Sherman to hit an enemy tank at 1000 yards? |
Marc33594 | 08 Aug 2016 10:03 a.m. PST |
Mobius, I was talking about the way losses are reported in the US military and have been since WW II. Tanks are listed as on hand and operational. Of those not operational they are broken down into repairable in 24 hours or less and those which will take greater than 24 hours. One does not have to guess how many days it will take to repair. And that form of reporting is pretty much international. You are the one disputing Colonel Disney's numbers and stating it is splitting hairs and a means to conceal losses. It doesnt matter what the other side counts or claims. What matter is in the morning report how many tanks are operational. If the Germans want to count a tank which bogs down as being knocked out they are welcome to do so. However the next morning, when an attack comes and they wonder where all the tanks are coming from an opponent may wish to refine their methods. No matter how many tanks the Germans claim the fact is at the end of the week only 12 medium and 6 light tanks were destroyed. |
mkenny | 08 Aug 2016 10:36 a.m. PST |
It is truly amazing how many stupid people must have been working in the US Army's Historical Section to have gotten the Army's own loss data all so terribly wrong ….. even though having complete access not only to all official records and returns but also direct interview access to actual participants. Just wow. Talk about revisionist history. I gave the links to the AARs and Unit History documents on AHF. The one source (one source you gave twice in the belief it make it twice as good) makes no reference to the AARs. I even posted the losses for TF 1 for a 7 day period signed by the Unit CO. You can lead a horse to water but……. |
mkenny | 08 Aug 2016 10:47 a.m. PST |
Didn't the Army put in one of its manuals that during WW2 it took an average of 13 shots from a Sherman to hit an enemy tank at 1000 yards? If you look in Jentz's 'Dreaded Threat 8.8cm In The AT Role' page 50 you can read: Average expenditure was 11 Pzgr per claimed tank kill at normal combat ranges (246 Pzgr for 22 tanks) At long range however ammo expenditure went up significantly, with 117 Pzgr fired to knock out 5 Mk II Infantry tanks. The mythical 88 averaging 11 rounds per kill-who would have believed It if Jentz did not say it? |
Mobius | 08 Aug 2016 2:29 p.m. PST |
Mobius, I was talking about the way losses are reported in the US military and have been since WW II. Tanks are listed as on hand and operational. Of those not operational they are broken down into repairable in 24 hours or less and those which will take greater than 24 hours. Very well, but I seen no number given for those tanks in Colonel Disney's report. |
Marc33594 | 08 Aug 2016 3:23 p.m. PST |
He was listing losses for the regiment, this is not a full report. His terminology was standard for these reports. Colonel Disney's report in this case is a summation for task force 1 for the period stated. |
mkenny | 08 Aug 2016 5:47 p.m. PST |
I notice that none of the 'disbelievers' has bothered to read the linked AHF thread properly. That is my only cryptic clue for them. What it boils down to is there was a few non-referenced US post war accounts that seemed to roll all US tank casualties (for any cause) for about a week into the action at Puffendorf. This was then solidified into 58 tank 'kills' by AP shot and from then every uber-panzer account has started with the 58 kills and worked backwards from it. No one bothered to consult the Unit AARs or the detailed US accounts from just after the war. All the evidence was there for anyone to find. |
mkenny | 08 Aug 2016 6:05 p.m. PST |
Very well, but I seen no number given for those tanks in Colonel Disney's report. Let me once again try and explain how Allied losses were calculated. At the end of daylight an Allied tank unit counted its tanks. All tanks ready for action are classed as 'fit'. Any tank with damage that can be repaired in 24 hours or under is classed as 'in repair' and kept on the Unit roster. Any tank that has damage that will take more than 24 hours to repair, any tank completely destroyed and any tank not with the unit and with location unknown is struck from the returns. This means an Allied tank unit that has 25 fit tanks, 5 with minor damage, 10 with heavy damaged and 10 tanks completely destroyed and 1 'missing will fill in its list with Fit = 25. In repair =5 and written off = 21. Note that of the 10 tanks with heavy damages some will be repaired and returned to service but all that is done in the rear. The front line unit writes of all the 10 heavily damaged tanks. A German Unit with exactly the same tank casualties would keep the heavily damaged tanks with the unit as 'in repair'. Thus the German numbers (for exactly the same damage as the Allied unit) would list 25 fit, 15 in repair and 11 written off. If someone then tries to find the tank losses for both sides in this example they would find the Allies wrote off 21 tanks and the Germans only 11 (even though both sides losses were exactly the same) and thus wrongly claim the German kill-rate was superior. |
Mobius | 10 Aug 2016 8:49 a.m. PST |
Actually I would like to find an AAR that describes an number of losses then find a different person of the same army tabulation a loss number. To see how close they are. |
Thomas Thomas | 10 Aug 2016 12:19 p.m. PST |
mkenny: You are correct about the US method of counting tanks "in repair" v. the German method. This is why the Germans always seem to have so many more thanks "in repair" leading to revisionist claims that M4s were super relialble while German tanks constantly broke down. But you are missing the point re evaluating armor losses in battle by considering only total write offs. Its too easy to manipulate the data using this measure. For instance if 15 M4s fight 5 PzVs and 10 M4s are "knocked out" for the loss of 4 PZVs, you have the losses for that battle. But if you count total writes off only, if the US retains the field hauls off the M4s and repairs 5 then total losses become 5 M4s v. 4 PzVs. Shermans are just as good as Panthers! But if the Germans retain the field and repair 3 of the PzVs then the losses become 10 M4s v. 1 PzV. The Panther is a wonder tank with a 10-1 kill ratio! Yet nothing has changed in the actual tank battle. As the Germans were generally on the defensive in 1944 and had to give up ground they recovered fewer tanks making their total write off losses seem higher. The correct method of determining tank loses in a particular battle is to count those "knocked out" and for that day rendered useless. TomT |
Marc33594 | 10 Aug 2016 12:34 p.m. PST |
mkenny, if you have a chance, drop me a line at marc33594ATyahooDOTcom Thanks Marc |
Mobius | 10 Aug 2016 2:33 p.m. PST |
The losses for TF1. 18 tanks destroyed in a 7 day period that includes the 1 day at Puffendorf. The 67 Armored Regiment AAR from Nov 1944 signed by CO Paul Disney. On one hand you have the question of how did Royal Ordinance get the loss details of particular actions? Then on the other hand why are Colonel Disney's numbers out of step with other sources, including interviews of participants of the action during the time period? It's like nothing to see here folks, move along. Maybe more losses were taken by TF #2 or the Combat Commands. And one report says the center TF. How do you have a center TF of two task forces? The second day's action on the Roer plain cost the 2d Armored Division 38 medium tanks, destroyed or knocked out, and 19 light tanks; 56 men killed, 281 wounded, 26 missing; and all but a few of these losses were incurred at Puffendorf.19 19. History 67th Armored Regiment, pp. 106- 08, 198-99. |
mkenny | 10 Aug 2016 3:34 p.m. PST |
Actually I would like to find an AAR that describes an number of losses then find a different person of the same army tabulation a loss number. To see how close they are……………. The second day's action on the Roer plain cost the 2d Armored Division 38 medium tanks, destroyed or knocked out, and 19 light tanks; 56 men killed, 281 wounded, 26 missing; and all but a few of these losses were incurred at Puffendorf.19 19. History 67th Armored Regiment, pp. 106- 08, 198-99. This illustrates perfectly the problem with Puffendorf. The above account is uncritically taken as the definitive version and the numbers have become fixed in stone. All subsequent re-telling take it as a given that there were '57' losses. All I did was consult other sources that give more detailed accounts of the losses. This has not gone down well with those who prefer the Uber-Panzer version of the battle. The sources I used at AHF all give lower totals. My lower numbers are supported by more than a single sentence in the Unit history. If you list the sources that give the 57 total then you might see what made me dig a bit deeper. How many sources give the higher number? The TF1/TF2/TFX details here should answer all your questions link |
mkenny | 10 Aug 2016 3:43 p.m. PST |
This is a way of splitting hairs to make it look like losses are not as bad as they seem………..And it's truly amazing that the US or any other Army ever, ever made one numeric mistake in their entire history……………Then on the other hand why are Colonel Disney's numbers out of step with other sources, including interviews of participants of the action during the time period? It's like nothing to see here folks, move along I note how any source that does not confirm the high kill claims is traduced with hints it is being doctored but the single US source that gives the high numbers is treated as if it is beyong criticism. Rather partial way of looking at things. |