DR, This is fun!
Basically the info provided was to show information of losses on both sides and some side info on loss reasons for German armor. This
post is not just about you (you nasty man) but about information. There were other posts before yours. Plus I like information and
like to share it... (edit add: those losses show knocking out those Tigers wasn't 'free').
Please quote where I said knocking out the Tigers were free, because what I actually said was they were killed at a 1-1 ratio with Shermans/Cromwells. Your numbers show nothing - you posted the British and American losses for different periods and then no total German losses, just an analysis of what destroyed some German tanks the British looked at. What conclusion can be drawn from these numbers? That all sides fighting in France lost some tanks? That was never in dispute.
You and a few others keep quoting Arracourt as some type of 'proof of life' that the Sherman was superior to the Panther or that having
the Panther at all was hurting the Germans. At the range they were fighting hitting a Panther in the side certainly would kill it but the
sources you keep quoting don't go into the detail needed to show WHY the Germans lost that engagement. You keep saying the won/
lost the battle. The battle took place over several days and was inclusive of several divisions and brigades as well as artillery, air, and
weather. Each part of the battle is an engagement. You keep talking about the battle instead of breaking it down into its components
to see what actually happened. To your mind battle won don't need to know more or why....and you did not seem to understand that
battles are made of smaller and smaller battles called engagements. The "Band of Brothers" company at Bastogne fought a series of
engagements in the battle. Its was not the battle of the "band of brothers". That shows your bonocular vision of history/facts. You
look too close and need to back off and see more of a question to see the proper answer.
Again no. I brought up Arracourt for two reasons:
1) To counter the claim that the Americans only fought with superior numbers and airpower.
2) To show that the supposed ability of Panthers to kill Shermans with impunity does not bear out when you actually look at battles they were both involved in.
If you didn't read the free account of the battle just say so. Why does official US historical archives frighten some people in Europe?
They are quite objective, amazingly so. The only time they wander is to mention instances where a soldier earns a particluar medal
and its usually a footnote... What info source exactly did you base your initial Arracourt position on?
I didn't read it, I thought that was clear. I don't have the time or inclination to go read a book just because you want me to. If it has a bearing on the discussion, again, post what you think and cite the relevant part of your source to back it up.
Probably because you mentioned Wiki when you complained about my complaints about Wiki. Were going in strange circles here like the
Panther won and lost battles issue....
The only strange thing here is your reasoning. You went off on a rant about wikipedia at me when I had not used any wiki sources. I haven't noticed anyone else citing wikipedia in this thread either, although it's possible I missed it.
I am truely glad WoT has a tanker on its staff. Fine by me tho having an F15 pilot tell me about flying aircraft in 1944 might be a bit odd. I base
my information on years of research myself. I have never fought in a Sherman tank and I suspect the WoT fellow, tho most certainly a honored
member of the military, did not either. Hearing stories from my Grandfather about flying for the RAF in WWI and knowing about WW2 air combat
I can see the difference there clearly. Your expert at WoT is doing exactly what I do here, research with books and articles.
Yes, I know he is doing research just like you, which is why I find it very strange that you just arbitrarily dismiss "WoT" as a source.
You have posted alot of facts repeatidly using the same sources over and over and I keep providing you with conflicting and accurate information
that you choose not to use nor acknowledge. This is your failing, not mine. Data is never random.
You have not. You have posted a couple of opinion pieces from people not in possession of all the facts as if they contradict the reports of the industrialists who made the Panther, the officers who commanded them, or the historians who studied how they actually performed. Often I point out problems with your source or ask how the data you are posting is relevant, but instead of answering you just jump to your next argument as if you hope that by just posting enough I'll forget how little substance is in each post.
And data certainly can be random, if I ask you what is 2+2 and you respond by telling me that "so called" arabic numerals were actually invented in India, it's certainly a data point but it doesn't answer the question. You
keep doing this as if posting enough unrelated bookquotes will establish you as well-versed in the topic, but any idiot can post quotes at random from a book, it does not make a coherent argument.
Funny is that I talked to my wife and since my brother (an ex-Marine of 37 years service who provides me info too on warfare) is 72 does not need
them I may will all my WW2 history books and have them sent after I fall off the perch to you fellas in Sweden. Would make good doorstops if you
have that many doors and I am sure Ikea is nearby if you need some more bookcases. I hate to see good stuff wasted.
We have rather few doors at the office, but despite what you think I do love history books. That's a kind offer.
Yes and strangely they translated a Panther book as well for their crews to use...
Actually true! (And yes, here we have a "WoT source" - the author is a Russian engineer with access to the Soviet defense archives which he translates and posts, it's interesting stuff)
