Tango01 | 01 Aug 2020 10:06 p.m. PST |
Of possible interest? link Amicalement Armand
|
mkenny | 02 Aug 2020 12:07 a.m. PST |
It is a staple of the endless 'List Of German Panzer Aces' porn and is copied from Wilbeck's 2004 book 'Sledgehammers'. All the unverified data (crew claims)used to compile this table is from Schneider's TIC I & II published in the 1990s. Very much yesterdays news and the sort of slack-jawed 'gosh that is amazing' fiction that used to appeal to a certain type of audience. Times and research methods have changed and it no longer has any credibility. Wilbeck added a note saying (more or less) that the sSS Pz Abt 503 claims were impossible to take seriously It is a pity he did not apply the same type of critical thinking to the rest of the totals. |
Tango01 | 02 Aug 2020 3:49 p.m. PST |
|
Blutarski | 03 Aug 2020 1:52 p.m. PST |
"Times and research methods have changed and it no longer has any credibility." Kindly expand upon this and share with us the latest analysis, mkenny.
B |
mkenny | 03 Aug 2020 3:06 p.m. PST |
Kindly expand upon this and share with us the latest analysis For example see the claim in Zetterling's 'Normandy'page 191 that 'no more than 4 Tigers may have been lost during GOODWOOD'. Multiply that total by 3 and you will start to see the scale of the problem in the year 2000. |
Thresher01 | 04 Aug 2020 7:14 a.m. PST |
Perhaps they are talking about those "lost" to enemy action vs. those abandoned and destroyed by their own crews. My understanding is that in the Tiger units losses from crews doing that when they broke down or ran out of fuel far surpassed those that were lost to enemy fire, mines, etc.. |
Tango01 | 04 Aug 2020 12:18 p.m. PST |
You are right my friend…. Amicalement Armand |
mkenny | 04 Aug 2020 2:21 p.m. PST |
Perhaps they are talking about those "lost" to enemy action vs. those abandoned and destroyed by their own crews Bogus artificial class of loss. Invented to make the German tank losses lower than Allied losses. Find me an Allied or Russian loss table that separates their losses into this laughable 'non combat loss'
My understanding is that in the Tiger units losses from crews doing that when they broke down or ran out of fuel far surpassed those that were lost to enemy fire, mines, etc Your understanding is skewed by deliberately misleading table like the one at the start of the thread. The only time German tanks ran completely out of fuel in Normandy was when the Allies destroyed their supply lines. Once they broke and ran they started throwing all their equipment away-- guns, mortars, lorries , horses, motor cycles etc. Perhaps we should have tables where we can see more Allied trucks were knocked out than German trucks and thus German trucks were far superior to Allied trucks? Who would even try to make such a case for trucks but somehow it is a valid way of working out tank losses? |
Blutarski | 04 Aug 2020 4:25 p.m. PST |
"Bogus artificial class of loss. Invented to make the German tank losses lower than Allied losses. Find me an Allied or Russian loss table that separates their losses into this laughable 'non combat loss'." 1 – It all depends upon what people want to examine.
2 – Coox and Naisawald do in fact cite statistics on Allied non-combat tank casualties. B |
mkenny | 04 Aug 2020 5:11 p.m. PST |
Indeed it does. For example if you want to lower German losses and inflate Allied losses the standard way is to exclude as many German total losses as possible and then compare the artificially lowered German loss total to the number of every Allied tank damaged in any way and for any reason. It helps that most of the German paperwork was lost or destroyed by the terrified panic-stricken soldiers in their headlong flight from Normandy and thus their real losses can be fudged. In the 3 most well-known ace claims for Normandy (Wittmann, Barkmann & Will Fey) it is now possible to prove those kill totals to be completely bogus. That is what I mean by times change. |
Blutarski | 04 Aug 2020 5:55 p.m. PST |
Once again – it depends upon what people wish to examine. That's why casualties are broken down by cause. B |
Thresher01 | 04 Aug 2020 9:35 p.m. PST |
Actually, a lot of German logistical transport was by horse-drawn wagon, unlike for the Western allies. |
mkenny | 05 Aug 2020 5:23 a.m. PST |
Once again – it depends upon what people wish to examine. That's why casualties are broken down by cause. Once again-No they are not. They are broken down into two very important classes, those fit for combat and those not fit. Check any Allied or German 'last light' total and you will see your error. What has happened is the besotted uber-panzer fans take the German casualty totals and then they break them down into 'cause of loss' It is an entirely invented classification with no other aim but the reduce the number of knocked-out panzers and validate the bogus 5-1 kill ratios. You will find Workshop breakdowns of the cause of tank damage but this is done days-to weeks after the event and has no impact on the tank Unit numbers. Note that not one Uber-panzer fans ever breaks Allied casualties down by cause and they always include every Allied tank casualty as a total loss when making the absurd Panzer Ace kill total tables. |
Blutarski | 05 Aug 2020 12:41 p.m. PST |
Coox and Naisawald were focused upon analysis of WW2 tank casualties by cause. They were not concerned with "last light" reports, nor were they terribly concerned with daily unit strengths. As you surely know, 21st Army Group operational research teams in fact devoted a great deal of time and effort collecting the sort of data necessary to support such analysis. I am still waiting for your data on the latest analytical progress made in this field. B |
mkenny | 05 Aug 2020 1:18 p.m. PST |
Coox and Naisawald were focused upon analysis of WW2 tank casualties by cause. Coox and Naisawald used casualty info from War Diaries. There is no way you can get an accurate count from British WD as some contain no information about losses at all. It is a broad overview of the subject and was never intended to be anything other than a rough guide to WW2 losses. If you have not got (for example) British Normandy 'Last Light numbers' or the US ETO Monthly Loss Reports then you are never going to get anywhere near the true losses. |
mkenny | 05 Aug 2020 1:22 p.m. PST |
They were not concerned with "last light" reports, nor were they terribly concerned with daily unit strengths. Clearly you are clueless. The only way you can get a count of a days tank casualties is to use the last Light numbers to see how many tanks have been lost since the last count. There is no other method available to work out losses. Without this information you are simply guessing. What an absurd claim. |
mkenny | 05 Aug 2020 1:50 p.m. PST |
As you surely know, 21st Army Group operational research teams in fact devoted a great deal of time and effort collecting the sort of data necessary to support such analysis. Yes and June 7 -Aug 7th is the only period not distorted by the panic-stricken flight of the German Army. Of 92 German tanks examined only 11 would fit the 'non combat loss ' classification. Far lower than some would have us believe. |