Tank Combat in Steel Division

[keynes2.0]

and now you make him a neo nazi because he doesnt focus on the soviets.

You know this conversation follows a very predictable pattern. I say a thing. You guys say that I shouldn't complain about something that I'm not complaining about. I restate my original position and no one acknowledges this.

Well that saves time.

 

[holoween]

the core of the discussion were having here is weather the information in the book " Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy" is usable as a source.

the argument for it being reliable are:
1. Author is an actual historian with a phd and Chief of Hungarian Military Archives.
2. The information given seems to match what other sources present

arguments against are
1. hes a neo nazi according to keynes2.0 based on publishing books that at about or at least include patially the ss and the title he gave one of his books.

im sorry but you can kinda see where im going to be leaning towards

 

[keynes2.0]

2. The information given seems to match what other sources present

If it matches with the other sources then make the argument without it. I already provided what I believe is a summary of all the other sources several pages ago and asked for any objections. I heard no objections.

 

[Ulatersk]

It's only famous in the context of the SS, not as a military operation. This is my point. While much more interesting and significant military operations were going on, he chose to write a book about the operation that the SS conducted.

Let me give you the list of his books on amazon:
Illustrated History of the Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung 202
Days of Battle: Armoured Operations North of the River Danube, Hungary 1944-45
Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy: The Combat History of SS Panzer Regiment 12 and SS Panzerjäger Abteilung 12, Normandy
The Sword Behind The Shield: A Combat History of the German Efforts to Relieve Budapest 1945 - Operation 'Konrad

Of the four books, two are specifically about the SS and the other two are specifically about operations famous for SS involvement.



Aren't amazon biographies put up by the authors themselves?

That doesnt even rate in first 10 most famous battles.

Yes, practically the last german offensive of the war happening in his home country is not an important military operation, and the other being literally the last succesful german strategic offensive is not important either


I really dont get what are you on about.

I guess Zetterling or Gen. Major Reynolds are nazis too.

 

[holoween]

I already provided what I believe is a summary of all the other sources several pages ago and asked for any objections. I heard no objections.

i fail to find where you did that. please direct me to the post where you did.

 

[keynes2.0]

i fail to find where you did that. please direct me to the post where you did.

Let me sum things up as I see them:

1) We have one author who is rubbish and whose books shows he likes the SS
2) We have a whole bunch of sources that are covering the same thing from many different angle. None of them contradict each other to any substantial degree although obvious differences will exist for methodological reasons.
3) Some sources show that the allies suffered thousands of tank losses in NW Europe counting both combat and non-combat losses
4) Some sources show that the allies suffered hundreds of tank write-offs to enemy fire (i.e. no mines) in that theatre
5) One source shows that losses to enemy fire in that theatre were mostly due to weapons besides the Panther

This is, as I believe a good summary of the information that has been presented in this conversation. Is there anything I am leaving out?

 

[Ulatersk]

i fail to find where you did that. please direct me to the post where you did.

He did not, he is afterall just an individual that was clasically conditioned to respond negatively to a sentence with Panther and random positive adjective in it.

 

[holoween]

thx

well nr one has obviously recieved objections seeing as the last few pages are about it.

nr five is what wer were arguing about but since you were rejecting sources on that matter the discussion became how reliable tha source is so we never actually reached a conclusion here.

 

[keynes2.0]

He did not, he is afterall just an individual that was clasically conditioned to respond negatively to a sentence with Panther and random positive adjective in it.

Oh hey more insults. Welcome to the ignore list.

well nr one has obviously recieved objections seeing as the last few pages are about it.

I was under the impression that the last few pages were about people getting pissy I insulted the credentials of this historian.

but since you were rejecting sources on that matter the discussion became how reliable tha source is so we never actually reached a conclusion here.

No I objected to a single source. A source that in your description agrees with the other sources, all of which I think are quite accurate and which I have thanked several individuals for sharing. These same individuals have responded with personal insults I would like to note.

So use any of the other sources.

 

[Tankhunter__]

Yeah, M18s were definitely around in Normandy. M10s were too, of course, and so was Achilles. There's also Challenger, which was more or less used as a TD.

Couple those with M4A1 (76) and Sherman Firefly and the allies aren't completely helpless vs. german armor, even at range, except for Tiger II, and not even that with 17-pounder APDS.

Speaking of 17-pounder APDS (afaik first deployed July 1944), it would be neat if we could select, through turning a weapon on or off, whether a vehicle fires that or APCBC. I'm thinking huge AP for APDS but a greatly reduced level of accuracy. Maybe on Achilles?

Hopefully we get the M18. Its inclusion is still doubtful.

 

[holoween]

No I objected to a single source. A source that in your description agrees with the other sources, all of which I think are quite accurate and which I have thanked several individuals for sharing. These same individuals have responded with personal insults I would like to note.

So use any of the other sources.

the reason were arguing about the one source is that its the only one that we can base a vehicles performance on.


no other sources that have been brought up have made any statement on any individual weapon systems performance. what they have however provided is that
1. afvs contributed about 40% of the losses of british tanks and possibly higher depending on what and how you count.
2. the kills claimed in the source talking about the panther arent at odds with the losses shown in any other source.

so all the information that has ben produced points to a quite good performance of the panthers (at least in the unit discussed) in regards to tank on tank fighting.

neither of us has the time to go through the archives ourselves so were left with having to trust the sources we can find.
all evidence ive been able to find results in that source to not be at odds with other trusted sources and at least for my part no reason to question the legitimacy of the authors claims.

so at this point unless you prove that this combat report is in some way inaccurate or impossible to achieve i have to conclude that the report is accurate.
one reminder though at this point. one units performance does not make a final judgement on how good a vehicle is.
at least the german tiger units showed drastically different performance between them so its likely that panther units had similar performance variations.
if that is the case its not hard to imagine that the panther unit described is one performing above average.

so while that doesnt leave us with a conclusive statement on how good the panther is averagely it shows that it can be very good.

 

[keynes2.0]

the reason were arguing about the one source is that its the only one that we can base a vehicles performance on.


no other sources that have been brought up have made any statement on any individual weapon systems performance. what they have however provided is that
1. afvs contributed about 40% of the losses of british tanks and possibly higher depending on what and how you count.
2. the kills claimed in the source talking about the panther arent at odds with the losses shown in any other source.

so all the information that has ben produced points to a quite good performance of the panthers (at least in the unit discussed) in regards to tank on tank fighting.

AFVs only count for 40% if you include Stugs! Kills by Stugs by definition are not kills by Panthers.

Why do you have a hateboner for Stugs? Do you just hate all Germans and that is why you are refusing to acknowledge that the Stug was a good vehicle?

so at this point unless you prove that this combat report is in some way inaccurate

You mean besides the fact that it would require no other German AFV to destroy a single tank in the sectors with the heaviest tank on tank fighting during the time of peak tank on tank fighting or else the numbers dont add up?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

1. afvs contributed about 40% of the losses of british tanks and possibly higher depending on what and how you count.
2. the kills claimed in the source talking about the panther arent at odds with the losses shown in any other source.

Though as a reminder, in light of your post few pages back on plausibility of 150 kills by Panthers, the original point of contention was not whether 600 something Panthers in theatre caused ~200 tank losses to the 21st Army Group but rather whether the Panther battalion of Hitlerjugend division of 60 something singlehandedly did so. It does make me wonder how many neighboring Lehr's Panthers were claiming for one.

 

[holoween]

Though as a reminder, in light of your post few pages back on plausibility of 150 kills by Panthers, the original point of contention was not whether 600 something Panthers in theatre caused ~200 tank losses to the 21st Army Group but rather whether the Panther battalion of Hitlerjugend division of 60 something singlehandedly did so. It does make me wonder how many neighboring Lehr's Panthers were claiming for one.

Total write offs of the British Tank Corps in the Normandy in June 1944 146 Tanks, July 231 Tanks, August 834 Tanks -> WO 165/136, Half yearly report on the Progress of the Royal Armored Corps, No 10, 1 July to 31 December 1944. Note the distortion of the losses over the months, most likely because of the workload of the repair shops being only able to investigate the heavily damaged tanks after the fighting lessened after the battle at Falaise, still 1211 total write offs for this three months. This number doesnt include ofc the knocked out and repaired tanks, all in all the germans claimed for the whole normandy front 3663 knocked out tanks, if you include the US Sherman losses alone in these three months (899 M4s, Office of the Chief of Military History, Dept of the Army, Washington D.C. 1953 ) to the british losses you get 2110 losses, US Light Tanks, TDs, SPGs not included. Hence the difference since knocked out tanks, depending on the source where up to 50% repairable, battlefield possession implied. So in all there is nothing wrong with the german number more like they are too low (Zetterling, Normandy 44, p. 75 quote 33).

assuming this data is correct and that the american losses have equal cause distribution to the british losses and assuming all german afvs are equally involved we would have to credit panthers with at least 240 (though that would be lowballing it as that doesnt include light tanks for the us). also at this point were talking about fully destroyed tanks whereas to be able to claim knocked out tanks they dont have to be fully destroyed. the crew bailing after a non penetrating hit counts as knock out.

taking into account that performance and killcounts varied drastically in the heavy tank units and assuming that same variation can be assumed for all other german armoured units andthen also factoring in some overcouniting i dont see it as unreasonable to assume the ~180 tanks knocked out to be quite accurate.

 

[Ulatersk]

Oh hey more insults. Welcome to the ignore list.

It is not an insult when it is the truth.

What I learned is that:

a.) Quite a few military and paramilitary units in past and present are fascist because they put their symbols on heraldic shields, because one paramilitary organisation continued the tradition of past in ww 2 and did the same.


b.) A book author is a nazi because heraldic shield is a nazi symbol and you do not understand comparisons.


c.) Given information can not be true because a statistic from entire North-western ETO is being applied to a battlefield with 2,5 tanks for every StuG, Jagdpanther and other SPATs, chronological order where 21st panzer division and 12th SS were the first unit to fight after 352nd ID and bunker crews, and own german kill claims by weapon showing that majority were done with tanks.

Also.

 

[77Hawk77]

I'd like to point out that disregarded nation and doctrine, tank destroyers were not front-line units, but reserve, this is true for Stugs, M10s/M18 and Su-76/Su-85s. Lightly armoured or turret-less vehicles are not suited for offensive operations, but counter attacks and ambushes.

I am not entire sure the argument here except about a source. But I'd think it's not needed to look at kill claims and such, if you really want to look at things look at AAR from the side that didn't' leave the battlefield and field manuals. The above claim at least for the US tank destroyer is substantiated by the US field manual for the use of tank destroyers 1942.

 

[Ulatersk]

M18 Hellcat tank destroyer 1943-97 from Steven Zaloga - according to this book, there were 3 tank destroyer battalions (603rd, 704th and 705th) equipped with M 18s attached to Patton's third army, and first participated in combat in operation Cobra.

 

[Crashes]

I'd like to point out that disregarded nation and doctrine, tank destroyers were not front-line units, but reserve, this is true for Stugs, M10s/M18 and Su-76/Su-85s. Lightly armoured or turret-less vehicles are not suited for offensive operations, but counter attacks and ambushes.

I am not entire sure the argument here except about a source. But I'd think it's not needed to look at kill claims and such, if you really want to look at things look at AAR from the side that didn't' leave the battlefield and field manuals. The above claim at least for the US tank destroyer is substantiated by the US field manual for the use of tank destroyers 1942.

Not entirely true. The thing to remember is that "most" German units on the tactical level did not have long range AT weapons. When American division commanders have a battalion of tanks and a battalion of TD's at their disposal, they are not going to withhold the TD's from frontline combat just because doctrine said to reserve them to counterattack an armored breakthrough, doubly so when it was apparent the Germans did not have enough tanks for a breakthrough. An armored, self-propelled, 76mm gun is still an invaluable asset during an infantry assault. M10's were used for direct fire support very often.

 

[Steeperman]

I'd like to point out that disregarded nation and doctrine, tank destroyers were not front-line units, but reserve, this is true for Stugs, M10s/M18 and Su-76/Su-85s. Lightly armoured or turret-less vehicles are not suited for offensive operations, but counter attacks and ambushes.

I am not entire sure the argument here except about a source. But I'd think it's not needed to look at kill claims and such, if you really want to look at things look at AAR from the side that didn't' leave the battlefield and field manuals. The above claim at least for the US tank destroyer is substantiated by the US field manual for the use of tank destroyers 1942.

When the 2ième Division Blindée of General Leclerc (part of American Corps) stormed to Argentan in the fightings to Close the Falaise pocket, the M10 of the RBFM were invaluable for the front line, because they were the only ones to harm Panthers and (i believe) Panzer IVs. And indeed, they had succes in destroying some of this heavier german tanks, because of their 76,2mm cannons and good accuracy.

 

[77Hawk77]

You always use what you have, my point is that TDs and Assault Guns are not good at this, compared to regular tanks, if you have 40 M10s or M18s and the enemy has 3 panthers and you don't have a tank company lying around, obviously you use what you have then. If you are short on tanks of course you can try to fill in gaps with stugs as well. But even according to the FM for tank destroyers, in the offense Tank destroyers like the M10 should perform secondary missions like infantry support, while actual tanks do the main fighting against enemy tanks.