# Tank commanders, who was best?



## Lucky13 (Apr 18, 2009)

If we look away from tank kills, allied or axis, WHO was the better tank commander all things considered?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 18, 2009)

I would say Otto Carius and of course Michael Wittman. Hermann Bix was another great tanker.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 18, 2009)

I have to say Otto Carius and Micheal Wittman.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2009)

Were there any Allied 'tank aces'? I know there must have been crews which destroyed more than five enemy tanks, but what was the system for claims, and did allied propaganda promote these crews in the same way it did ace pilots? Was it like the airborne system, with intel officers debriefing each crew and assigning credit for kills? I only ask because although I have read about Wittman and Carius, and know that both Germany and Russia had specific decorations for _infantrymen_ who killed tanks, I have never heard of a Russian or Western Allied tank ace like the German ones...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 18, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Were there any Allied 'tank aces'? I know there must have been crews which destroyed more than five enemy tanks, but what was the system for claims, and did allied propaganda promote these crews in the same way it did ace pilots? Was it like the airborne system, with intel officers debriefing each crew and assigning credit for kills? I only ask because although I have read about Wittman and Carius, and know that both Germany and Russia had specific decorations for _infantrymen_ who killed tanks, I have never heard of a Russian or Western Allied tank ace like the German ones...



I wondered the same thing BT, I looked online a few times for allied tank aces, but found nothing. Alos, I think Barkmann deserves a claim for best tank commander.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 18, 2009)

A look at Wittmann's rise is instructive. He starts at 0 in July 1943. by 7/1/44 he had manged to rack up 56 kills. In the following 21 days he gets another 61. In one day 13/6/44 he is awarded a further 21. It seems that his kill rate was rising steadily over the months and I suppose if he had lasted longer he would end up being credited with 50 tanks a day!
The system takes no account of the known overclaiming and thus is purely a propoganda tool for civilian consumption. It had little connection with reality.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2009)

Sure m_kenny, sure


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2009)

Do either of you know of any Allied tank aces?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 18, 2009)

m kenny said:


> A look at Wittmann's rise is instructive. He starts at 0 in July 1943. by 7/1/44 he had manged to rack up 56 kills. In the following 21 days he gets another 61. In one day 13/6/44 he is awarded a further 21. It seems that his kill rate was rising steadily over the months and I suppose if he had lasted longer he would end up being credited with 50 tanks a day!
> The system takes no account of the known overclaiming and thus is purely a propoganda tool for civilian consumption. It had little connection with reality.



That doesn't discredit the fact Wittman blunted the advance of the desert rats in Villers-bocage.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2009)

m kenny said:


> A look at Wittmann's rise is instructive. He starts at 0 in July 1943. by 7/1/44 he had manged to rack up 56 kills. In the following 21 days he gets another 61. In one day 13/6/44 he is awarded a further 21. It seems that his kill rate was rising steadily over the months and I suppose if he had lasted longer he would end up being credited with 50 tanks a day!
> The system takes no account of the known overclaiming and thus is purely a propoganda tool for civilian consumption. It had little connection with reality.



Kenny,

We have debated before and I highly respect your knowledge. But if you are going to try to discredit a war hero for Germany then at least provide proof and not just hear say. I am not saying you are wrong or correct but facts speak volumes. Lets see your facts, I care little for opinions.

You know as well as any of us here over claiming and propaganda was done on both sides so lets not pretend it was only the Germans doing it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 19, 2009)

In regards to "kill" authentication, I'll post an excerpt from an article by George Nipe titled "Ribbentrop at Prokhorovka". It was a report on a engagement during the battle of Kursk, focusing on Lt. Rudolph Von Ribbentrop. During the battle, Ribbentrop engaged the Soviet 31st and 32nd tank brigades with his 7 Pzkfw tanks.



> "When the fighting ended on the evening of July 12, scores of Russian tanks were left smoldering in Leibstandarte's sector between the Psel river and the railroad embankment.According to Soviet accounts, the 18th and the 29th Tank Corps had only 200 operational tanks on July 13, which meant that these two corps alone had lost approximately 160 tanks. In addition, the 2nd and 2nd Guards Tank Corps, already weakended in previous fighting, were decimated in the fighting against Das Reich.
> 
> _The SS divisions claimed so many destroyed tanks that Fourth Panzer Army headquarters was skeptical and issued a directive regarding the counting of knocked-out enemy tanks. Following this implied rebuke, corps commander Hausser came to hill 252.2 and inspected the battlefeild personally. He counted 93 Russian tanks knocked out just in the vicinity_ [Where Von Ribbentrop's action was depicted] _of hill 252.2; he marked each with a peice of chalk to arrive at an exact figure._
> 
> In contrast, Leibstandardte had lost only 17 Panzers, a ratio of nine Russian tanks lost for every German tank knocked out..."


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 19, 2009)

Interesting, thanks Grau.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

Looking at "tank" kills, how many of these were "soft" targets, like trucks etc? Didn't one whatshisname.....Knispel have 160+ kills?


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Hunter368 said:


> Kenny,
> 
> We have debated before and I highly respect your knowledge. But if you are going to try to discredit a war hero for Germany then at least provide proof and not just hear say.



I gave you the numbers. It is obvious that the 'kills' attributed to Wittmann increased towards the end of his life. By the end he was being credited with ever increasing daily totals. Contrast this with the lack of 'kills' for his service up to July 1943. 
It is a fact(i.e. supported by irrefutable evidence) that for Villers Bocage Wittmann only met 11 tanks yet he was given a kill total of 21. Is that proof enough?



GrauGeist said:


> In regards to "kill" authentication,



In the end the Germans were so concerned about the amount of overclaiming they applied a flat 50% reduction to all crew claims before they collated the numbers . They at least recognised the problem.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

D/P


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2009)

On Allied tank aces, there were at least some, once I looked them for a friend and found a few from net, highest scoring mentioned was an American, but I have forgot his name and score. At least he wasn’t Lt.Col Creighton Abrams, CO of 37th Tank Bn, who according to Zaloga was probably one of the highest scoring US tankers of WWII, but the total number of enemy tanks k/o by his crew is not known as he didn’t consider such tallies significant. There were a few “aces in one day” Firefly commanders, one of whom was Sgt Wilfred Harris from 4/7 Dragoons Guards, whose crew got 5 Panthers on 14 June 44.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2009)

Ive read accounts purporting to be serious studies, claiming the germans lost fewer than 100 tanks at Kursk. Clearly these cannot be accounts that can be taken at all seriously, otherwise why did the Germans have to retreat after the battle.

In fact the issue of losses is an extremely complex one, not easily answered. Using Kursk as an example, it is often claimed that Soviet losses amounted to 800000 men and over 1500 tanks, whilst German losses are placed at 300000 men and something like 500 tanks. However, according to Zitterling and Frankson, in their "Kursk- A statistical analysis" these figures are clearly wrong in some instances and simply gross misrepresentations of the facts in others. Soviet casualties did amount to 800000, but only 177000 of these were permanent losses, nearly all the remainder were returned to service within 4-6 months of being wounded. German dead amounted to 60000 to which must be added approximately another 40000 captured or MIA. So the final, permanent casualty lists for Kursk amount to 177000 Soviet to approximately 100000 German.

Similar inconsistencies apply to the tank losses. The Soviets did not lose 1500 tanks as is often reported. In fact about 1300 tanks either broke down, or were knocked out....with the actual numbers knocked out by the Germans being 1080. Of these 1080, fully 400 were obsolete light tanks, which the Soviets did not even bother to repair after the battle. Of the remaining 600 (plus the 220 broken down tanks) all but 200 or so were repaired and returned to service. So overall net losses of heavy armour for the Soviets amounted to just 200 tanks (give or take)

Turning now to the Germans, the total losses, including breakdowns amounted to about 560 tanks, however some 240 of these were recovered, and later returned to battle. The Germans were forced to abandon over 300 tanks on the battlefield, meaning (shock horror) that German unrecovered losses in tanks actually exceeded Soviet losses (if the Soviet light tanks are ignored). 

Soviet losses remain somewhat problematic, but much has been revealed since the fall of the Soviet Union 

Clearly the wartime claims for tanks knocked out will often not take into account the fact that such losses might not be permamenent. At what point do you credit a kill and at do you take it back, if that "kill" returns to service after it has been knocked out. Incidentally, because the germans were basically on the retreat from '43 onwards, their actual losses as opposed to battlefield casualties, were often much higher than those battlefield accounts would suggest....


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> In regards to "kill" authentication, I'll post an excerpt from an article by George Nipe titled "Ribbentrop at Prokhorovka". It was a report on a engagement during the battle of Kursk, focusing on Lt. Rudolph Von Ribbentrop. During the battle, Ribbentrop engaged the Soviet 31st and 32nd tank brigades with his 7 Pzkfw tanks.


Von Ribbentrop was another great tanker. The interesting thing was his service on the eastern front in general; being the son of a famous man.


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2009)

I always connect Rudolf von Ribbentrop to the debacle of 9th June 44 when his 3./SSPzR 12 lost 7 out of its 12 Panthers in short order to, for all units, C? Coy 25th Armoured Delivery Unit/Rgt which was bringing replacement tanks forward and noticed the attacking Panthers in open. Bad luck for v. Ribbentrop of course but also a fundamental mistake to a Panther unit commander to left a flank unprotected during an attack.

Juha


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 19, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Ive read accounts purporting to be serious studies, claiming the germans lost fewer than 100 tanks at Kursk. Clearly these cannot be accounts that can be taken at all seriously, otherwise why did the Germans have to retreat after the battle.


That's a good question, but then again, there's many instances where one side hammers thier opponent and still loses overall. Pearl Harbor would be a prime, and well documented example of this. The Japanese clearly won that engagement, hands-down...but after the fact, many of the ships accounted for as sunk or stricken were eventually restored and came back to haunt them.

I think the same thing would be the case here. The Germans clearly handed the Soviets thier arse in the above battle, but they weren't able to hold the ground in the long run. A tank's main purpose is, as you know, to take an objective through mobility. Once it has acheived that objective, it's up to the infantry to secure the fresh realestate while the tank (in theory) moves foreward to gain more ground.

Gaining or even securing the contested ground also means that recovering damaged tanks (including enemy hardware) is critical for resupplying/maintaining your units' strength. The Soviets, after July 12, were bringing up massive amounts of fresh men and equipment, the Germans on the otherhand, were exhausted and under equipped. A Panzer, or even a soldier, lost at this point was a huge deal.


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2009)

What some people seem to be missing here is that light vehicles such as armoured personnel carriers also were counted as kills in Propoganda papers. 

What one needs to look at is Wittmanns own records of the occasion(s), and he makes it quite clear that he knocked out between 10 or 15 Allied tanks that famous day in Villers Bocage, which corresponds well with the actual losses. The loads of APC's trucks he also destroyed were all counted in the propoganda papers.

*Parsifal,*

The Battle of Kursk is an interesting one as the Soviets claimed they knocked out nearly 100 Tiger tanks there, while infact only 10 Tigers ever made it there and only 3 were lost. 

Another interesting thing about Kursk is that the German claims were all cut in half or more by the German high command as they couldn't believe the figures. The Germans had destroyed so many Soviet tanks that the German high command found it impossible that the Soviets could've won, but infact the Germans DID destroy as many as they claimed, even more infact. Therefore the German records for Soviet losses are about 3 to 4 times lower than the actual Soviet losses as listed in Soviet records.

The Germans got 1,600 of their claimed Soviet tank kills confirmed, while the Soviets admitted the loss of ~6,000 tanks SPG's (Which was close to the original German claim)

The Soviets claimed 900 German tank kills, while in reality the Germans lost roughly 235 tanks in all, 3 of which were Tigers. 

The worst case of overclaiming however happened in the air where the Soviets claimed 3,000 German a/c shot down... In reality only ~200 German a/c were lost. While at the same time the German high command again were very sceptical about the German claims, but nevertheless the Germans were much closer claiming roughly 1,000 Soviet a/c shot down, a little less than the 1,100 to 1,200 a/c that the Soviets admitted to have lost.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

Some very interesting info as usual, Soren.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2009)

I've read it many times that for most of the (all) allied 'GIs' every tank was Tiger, every german soldier was a member of SS, every LW fighter was Messerschmitt (and the 190 was Fokker  for w. Allies), and every SP ATG was Ferdinand for russians.

Perhaps that's why claim numbers had to be double checked.


----------



## Soren (Apr 19, 2009)

Very true tomo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2009)

While I agree that over claiming was done on both sides, I find it very hard for anyone to argue that Whitman was not the best. I hate it when people discredit greatness on any side...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2009)

Soren, how did the Russians and Germans figure their opponents loss's when many of the destroyed tanks were recovered and returned to service?

In fact, how did they count loss's? Blowing the turret off a tank is an indication of a permanent kill. But blowing out an engine, which could be replaced in good time, is not really indicative of a true battlefield loss.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2009)

All I can say is that often a tank listed as "knocked out" is only knocked out temporarily. If that tank is recovered, and subsequently repaired, should it coult as a loss.

Also for the side actually losing the ground, the clear evidence is that its unrecoverable losses will go up disproportionately. This is why counting losses as a measure of efficiency is so poor as a measure...it depends on the battle situation. Clearly the germans were tactically superior to the Russians, yet the latest figures available to me, suggest that in battle tanks lost, the Soviets actually lost less tanks overall than the germans I know that is contentious, for some unbelievable, but it seems to be a fact, based on the best figures I have available. 

Even if the figures arent accepted, they were certainly a lot closer than the mainly one sided accounts that we have had to rely on up to now would suggest...

But I repeat the question, the issue of "who is the best tank commander" becomes almost impossible to unravel, if more than half the "kills" get up after tney have been "knocked out" and start shooting again??? I wonder how many of wittmans 11 or 17 kills actually came back to fight ahagin after Villers Bocage. Etc Etc


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> What some people seem to be missing here is that light vehicles such as armoured personnel carriers also were counted as kills in Propoganda papers.
> 
> What one needs to look at is Wittmanns own records of the occasion(s), and he makes it quite clear that he knocked out between 10 or 15 Allied tanks that famous day in Villers Bocage, which corresponds well with the actual losses. The loads of APC's trucks he also destroyed were all counted in the propoganda papers.



From his award citation for Villers Bocage:

*He succeded in knocking out 15 heavy enemy tanks in a very short time. An additional six tanks were hit and their crews forced to bail out"*

His kill total on leaving Russia was 117. His kill total on 14th June 1944 was given as138. Therefore he was awarded 21 kills for Villers.
There is no confusion. He did not knock out '15 heavy tanks' and did not hit 'an additional six'.



> Another interesting thing about Kursk is that the German claims were all cut in half or more by the German high command as they couldn't believe the figures.



Slightly wrong. The Germans reduced ALL claims for EVERY battle because they knew the figures were inflated.



> . Therefore the German records for Soviet losses are about 3 to 4 times lower than the actual Soviet losses as listed in Soviet records.



A source for this absurd claim?



> The Germans got 1,600 of their claimed Soviet tank kills confirmed, while the Soviets admitted the loss of ~6,000 tanks SPG's (Which was close to the original German claim)



Those with a mind to find the real figures can do no better than consult page 127 of Zetterling's 'Kursk 1943' where they can see the Russian totals are in the area 1300 - 1905 tanks, depending on the dates you use.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While I agree that over claiming was done on both sides, I find it very hard for anyone to argue that Whitman was not the best. I hate it when people discredit greatness on any side...



As we know, the legend of the "Second World War tank commander with the highest number of kills" has been kept up to this day. This judgement is completely wrong, in terms both of the actual score and the tactics employed! A competent tank company commander does not accumulate so many serious mistakes as Wittmann made at Villers Bocage.
As the enemy's position was not clear, it was all the more necessary to work out a well-conceived counter-attack. On the basis of observation relying on an overall view of the situation, valuable intelligence could have been obtained before engaging. Such overhastiness was uncalled for, as the next company (1./SS-101) was in a favorable position further north-east, and it could have attacked the enemy forces when they advanced.
The hasty, single-handed attack on the large and powerful British force may seem brave, but it goes against all the rules (no centre of gravity, no concentration of forces, importance of the moment of surprise). The action that followed by the bulk of the 2nd Company and by Mobius 1st Company came up against an enemy who had gone onto the defensive.
The carefree advance of a single panzer into a town occupied by the enemy is pure folly.
Thoughtlessness of this kind was to cost the "tank commander with the highest number of kills" his life on August 8th 1944, near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2009)

parsifal said:


> But I repeat the question, the issue of "who is the best tank commander" becomes almost impossible to unravel, if more than half the "kills" get up after tney have been "knocked out" and start shooting again??? I wonder how many of wittmans 11 or 17 kills actually came back to fight ahagin after Villers Bocage. Etc Etc



That is a very good point. How can you define a "kill" if the tank can be repaired and used again?



m kenny said:


> As we know, the legend of the "Second World War tank commander with the highest number of kills" has been kept up to this day. This judgement is completely wrong, in terms both of the actual score and the tactics employed! A competent tank company commander does not accumulate so many serious mistakes as Wittmann made at Villers Bocage.
> As the enemy's position was not clear, it was all the more necessary to work out a well-conceived counter-attack. On the basis of observation relying on an overall view of the situation, valuable intelligence could have been obtained before engaging. Such overhastiness was uncalled for, as the next company (1./SS-101) was in a favorable position further north-east, and it could have attacked the enemy forces when they advanced.
> The hasty, single-handed attack on the large and powerful British force may seem brave, but it goes against all the rules (no centre of gravity, no concentration of forces, importance of the moment of surprise). The action that followed by the bulk of the 2nd Company and by Mobius 1st Company came up against an enemy who had gone onto the defensive.
> The carefree advance of a single panzer into a town occupied by the enemy is pure folly.
> Thoughtlessness of this kind was to cost the "tank commander with the highest number of kills" his life on August 8th 1944, near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank.



So you judge someone off of one engagement? I applaud you.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So you judge someone off of one engagement? I applaud you.




Your applause is not warranted. They are he words of Wolfgang Schneider.
Schneider is famous for his writings about The Tiger tank, it's Units and actions.
The full section may be found on pages 154 to 160 of Henrie Marie's 'Villers Bocage. Normandy 1944 (Heimdal 2003)
Amazon.com: VILLERS BOCAGE: Normandy 1944: Henri Marie: Books

_*General Analysis*
The action of the 1st and 2nd Companies of the schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101 was everything but awe-inspiring. SS-Panzerkorps propaganda then gave a decisively misleading account of it. How can this be explained?
First, we have to remember that - unlike the Wehrmacht - the Waffen-SS did not have a experienced tank arm. Compared with the brilliant exploits of the «old» (Wehrmacht) panzer divisions, the Waffen-SS could not hope for similar successes. At a pinch, the II SS-Panzerkorps's action in Russia, in the southern sector, during Operation Zitadelle in July 1943, commands respect. *So with Obersturmfuhrer Wittmann, Sepp Dietrich tried his utmost to manufacture a hero. On the Eastern front, the Knight's Cross was awarded for «kills», as were Oakleaves. This is all the more astonishing as, both in the Wehrmacht tank arm and among the tank destroyers, many soldiers had much higher scores*
As we know, the legend of the "Second World War tank commander with the highest number of kills" has been kept up to this day. This judgement is completely wrong, in terms both of the actual score and the tactics employed! A competent tank company commander does not accumulate so many serious mistakes as Wittmann made.
1. The company commander knows exactly the technical status of all his panzers. He does not place a
vehicle which has engine trouble at the head of a stationary column; the risk of blocking all the other panzers is just too great.
2. A sunken lane can afford some protection, but it is not a suitable standby base when the enemy's position is unknown. The major concern is for the panzers to be disposed in such a way as not to hamper their freedom of movement.
3. In a concentration sector, all battleworthy panzers are placed in alert positions. These positions and the
roads leading to them have to be carefully reconnoitered. When placed on the alert or when the concentration sector is attacked, upon orders, the crews join them individually. But when the morning alert came,
none of the company's tank commanders knew what to do.
4. After the first intelligence of the enemy, the company should have been placed on the alert at once with orders to ready itself for battle as quickly as possible. Invaluable time would certainly have been saved
and it could have regrouped before engaging the enemy. Such action would have been more effective.
5. As the enemy's position was not clear, it was all the more necessary to work out a well-conceived counter-attack. On the basis of observation relying on an overall view of the situation, valuable intelligence could have been obtained before engaging. Such overhastiness was uncalled for, as the next company (1./SS-101) was in a favorable position further north-east, and it could have attacked the enemy forces when they advanced.
6. The hasty, single-handed attack on the large and powerful British force may seem brave, but it goes against all the rules (no centre of gravity, no concentration of forces, importance of the moment of surprise). The action that followed by the bulk of the 2nd Company and by Mobius 1st Company came up against an enemy who had gone onto the defensive.
7. The carefree advance of a single panzer into a town occupied by the enemy is pure folly.
Thoughtlessness of this kind was to cost the "tank commander with the highest number of kills" his life on August 8th 1944, near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank._


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 19, 2009)

While it did seem foolhardy, Wittman saw a chance to catch the British off guard, and he took it. He was outnumbered, but his Tiger was more then a match for the Sherman's and Cromwell's the British had.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Your applause is not warranted. They are he words of Wolfgang Schneider.
> Schneider is famous for his writings about The Tiger tank, it's Units and actions.
> The full section may be found on pages 154 to 160 of Henrie Marie's 'Villers Bocage. Normandy 1944 (Heimdal 2003)
> Amazon.com: VILLERS BOCAGE: Normandy 1944: Henri Marie: Books
> ...



Like I said, I do not care about one engagement. I am sure that if you look through history all great commanders of any kind have made mistakes or were rash in there decisions.

To judge someone off of one engagement is foolish.


----------



## Juha (Apr 19, 2009)

Soren
Now even Manstein’s southern pincer alone had 102 Tigers at the beginning of the Zitadelle ie the German attack phase of the Battle of Kursk, not 10. If you are happily intermingled numbers of Tigers participating the tank battle of Prokhorovka with the losses of the whole battle of Kursk, then your Tiger numbers made sense, if we left out the Tigers of the Tiger Coy of the 3rd SSPzGrD T, they were there but IIRC they were still S of river Psel on 12 July, but probably II SSPzAK could have used them if it had wanted because if they were S of Psel they were then at the rear of 1st SSPxGrD LAH which took the brunt of the attack of Soviet 5th Guards Tank Army.

Are the Soviet claim of 3000 LW a/c shot down only that claimed in air-to-air and the ~200 LW a/c lost the number lost in air combat?

Juha


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

Wittmans performance on the Eastern front alone puts him in the running for best tank commander. He was a natural at finding enemy anti tank emplacements and I don't think those are noted in the kill record. Anti-tank guns were considered by many to be worth more then a tank kill. His experience in the Stug helped him immensely in the slow turning turret of the Tiger I.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

His aggression probably helped him become one of the greater tank commanders, since armor is essentially an assault weapon. His death should come as no surprise noting the imbalance of men and equipent in all theaters.



> "...the decision was a very, very difficult one. Never before had I been so impressed by the strength of the enemy as I was by those tanks rolling by; but I knew it absolutely had to be and I decided to strike out into the enemy."
> 
> Michael Wittmann, 13th June 1944


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Wittmans performance on the Eastern front alone puts him in the running for best tank commander. He was a natural at finding enemy anti tank emplacements and I don't think those are noted in the kill record. Anti-tank guns were considered by many to be worth more then a tank kill. His experience in the Stug helped him immensely in the slow turning turret of the Tiger I.



Nope we can't do that! He may have made some bad mistakes or some rash decisions. That and the fact that the was German takes him out of the running...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2009)

On a side note there was a show Called "Battle Field Mysteries" trying to determine which unit eliminated Wittman, they went into the ranges with all the ballistics of the weapons near him , along with recce photos showing the units placements . It was pretty cool .


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Wittmans performance on the Eastern front alone puts him in the running for best tank commander.



Which specific incidents do you have in mind?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

This is what I found.... 
Unit: Losses/Kills, Kill/Loss Ratio 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501: 120/450, 3.75 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502: 107/1,400, 13.08 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503: 252/1,700, 6.75 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 504: 109/250, 2.29 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 505: 126/900, 7.14 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 506: 179/400, 2.23 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 507: 104/600, 5.77 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508: 78/100, 1.28 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 509: 120/500, 4.17 
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 510: 65/200, 3.08 
13./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland: 6/100, 16.67 
III./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland: 98/500, 5.10 
13./SS-Panzerregiment: 1/42 400, 9.52 
8./SS-Panzerregiment: 2/31 250, 8.06 
9./SS-Panzerregiment: 3/56 500, 8.93 
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (501): 107/500, 4.67 
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 102 (502): 76/600, 12.82


Total 1,715/9,850, 5.74

Didn't Otto Carius have something similar as Wittmanns Villers-Bocage...Malinava something, or am I thinking of someone else?


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> This is what I found...
> Unit: Losses/Kills, Kill/Loss Ratio
> schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501: 120/450, 3.75
> schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502: 107/1,400, 13.08
> ...



From Willbeck's book and compiled using unconfirmed crew claims. More a wish list than a record of reality


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 19, 2009)

So Kenny, do have any proof or links to dispute Wittman's claims?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 19, 2009)

Juha said:


> Soren
> Now even Manstein’s southern pincer alone had 102 Tigers at the beginning of the Zitadelle ie the German attack phase of the Battle of Kursk, not 10. If you are happily intermingled numbers of Tigers participating the tank battle of Prokhorovka with the losses of the whole battle of Kursk, then your Tiger numbers made sense, if we left out the Tigers of the Tiger Coy of the 3rd SSPzGrD T, they were there but IIRC they were still S of river Psel on 12 July, but probably II SSPzAK could have used them if it had wanted because if they were S of Psel they were then at the rear of 1st SSPxGrD LAH which took the brunt of the attack of Soviet 5th Guards Tank Army.
> 
> Are the Soviet claim of 3000 LW a/c shot down only that claimed in air-to-air and the ~200 LW a/c lost the number lost in air combat?
> ...




Juha

Soren is not incorrect in what he says, its just that the definition of the Kursk Battle which he is using (and which is supported by quite a few people) is not the same as the more general approach applied to Kursk by most of us.

"Kursk" in the western sense actually relates to a series of widely dispersed battles spreading over more than a month, and fought over many hundreds of kilometres of front. If you adopt that definition of the battle, then Soren is wrong, and you are right. However, the actual battle of Kursk (which incidentally did not even involve the full SS panzer Corps) then he is right, moreover, that one engaggement (prokorovkha) has had more BS written about it than just about any other WWII battle. It was not a resounding Soviet victory, it did not break the back of the Panzer waffe, it did not see hordes of tanks engaging at point blank range, and it was definately not the biggest tank enagement of the war. It did see heavy losses for one of the three Soviet tank Corps engaged (the 29th). But even then full write offs for the Soviets, excluding Light Tanks like the T-70s, amounted to just 94 tanks, (the accounts from german sources of hundreds of Russians tanks lost in one day are based on the immediate battle situation.....within weeks most of these so-called losses had been repaired and were back in battle) 

However, if one adopts a wider view of the battle Of Kursk, beyond that then Sorens facts and figures are wrong, and you are closer to being correct. On the wider front there were many more than just three tigers, in addition there were 119 Panthers and I forget how many ferdinands .... and German tank losses overall actually exceeded those for the Russian heavy tanks, because nearly all of their break downs were lost to the enemy (ie the Soviets)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> From Willbeck's book and compiled using unconfirmed crew claims. More a wish list than a record of reality


Was suspecting that....


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Which specific incidents do you have in mind?


No specifics in general but maybe his survival in three deployments to the Eastern front might be a clue to his abilities as a Panzerfuror. Coupled with his kill record and aggressiveness make him a candidate for best tank commander. Think about it.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> So Kenny, do have any proof or links to dispute Wittman's claims?



I only dispute claims I know to be incorrect. Why they are incorrect is not my call.
Recently I took the trouble to read carefully through Agte's book on Wittmann and what was suprising was how the kill claims were ramping up towards the latter part of his career. It appears the higher his public profile the more claims were made. In 3 weeks in January 1944 his kill total doubled and his Villers score were more than twice his own claims. Clearly he was being used as a propoganda tool with little regard for reality. He himself did not claim he knocked out 21 tanks.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> No specifics in general but maybe his survival in three deployments to the Eastern front might be a clue to his abilities as a Panzerfuror. Coupled with his kill record and aggressiveness make him a candidate for best tank commander. Think about it.



I have thought about it. I hear so much about how well he did that I am suprised that no one can give the examples where he did so well.
In fact I am of the opinion the majority of people claiming he did so well have not got the faintest idea what he did. They just parrot that which they believe to be true.
Think about it.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

I have happened to read more then a few books on Wittman and look forward to reading any books disputing his abilities as a great tank commander. I am always ready to learn. He did well in Nogai, Crimea, during Zitadelle, and at Sherepki and many points in between.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

Let's say that Wittmann knocked out those 21 was it, tanks. How long did the V-B fighting last, how fast would the gunner and loader have to work to accomplish this feat and Wittmann to pick out the right targets?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> I only dispute claims I know to be incorrect. Why they are incorrect is not my call.
> Recently I took the trouble to read carefully through Agte's book on Wittmann and what was suprising was how the kill claims were ramping up towards the latter part of his career. It appears the higher his public profile the more claims were made. In 3 weeks in January 1944 his kill total doubled and his Villers score were more than twice his own claims. Clearly he was being used as a propoganda tool with little regard for reality. He himself did not claim he knocked out 21 tanks.



Fair enough, I still consider Wittmann to be one of the best.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I have happened to read more then a few books on Wittman



Which ones?



> look forward to reading any books disputing his abilities as a great tank commander.


I had thought we were talking about overclaiming. Why do you want to take the argument to absurdity?




> I am always ready to learn. He did well in Nogai, Crimea, during Zitadelle, and at Sherepki and many points in between.



Ah you did a quick Google to Panzerace.
panzerace.net | michael wittmann biography 
Why didn't you use your books?


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Let's say that Wittmann knocked out those 21 was it, tanks. How long did the V-B fighting last, how fast would the gunner and loader have to work to accomplish this feat and Wittmann to pick out the right targets?



Moot because he never saw 21 tanks. If he never came withing range of more than 11 how can he knock out 21?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

I wouldn't know mate... I was just wondering if they ever took into consideration, how fast gunner/loader/commander would have to act for some of these claimes that I've seen here...
As soon as the first shot is fired, you're target (before that you're safe) and you'll have to pick your victims fast and carefully....


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Which ones?
> 
> 
> I had thought we were talking about overclaiming. Why do you want to take the argument to absurdity?
> ...



Ah, you decided to be a punk about it. Look at the OP title, Tank Commanders, who is the best? Not Michael Wittman overclaimed possibly ( and I know because I'm so smart). You have been asked to show the proof of your claims but you cannot, so don't grill me about what books I have read, besides if you search my other posts you might even see some photos of these books. You don't even deserve a reply until you can show some proof.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Look at the OP title, Tank Commanders, who is the best? Not Michael Wittman overclaimed possibly ( and I know because I'm so smart).



If you reply to my points you are talking to me. Title or no title



> You have been asked to show the proof of your claims but you cannot,



What do you want proof of?



> so don't grill me about what books I have read, besides if you search my other posts you might even see some photos of these books.


It was a simple question. Why are you evasive when I ask for the source of your facts? If I knew the titles I would understand your argument better. I don't know of many books about Wittmann and your saying you have read 'more then a few ' leads me to believe I have missed some. Maybe you are refering to the many books that mention Wittmann rather than books on him?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> If you reply to my points you are talking to me. Title or no title
> *I wasn't talking about overclaiming you were.*
> 
> 
> ...



You are not the only one who has an interest and knowledge on Tank warfare during WWII.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

"During this short engagement, Wittmann's company destroyed 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns." 

For all this, they must have worked like crazy in the turrets, thinking of shells that missed etc..62 vehicles!


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I have happened to read more then a few books on Wittman and look forward to reading any books disputing his abilities as a great tank commander. I am always ready to learn.





Try this for starters:






This was posted earlier but you must have missed it. The author is Wolfgang Schneider and he can in no way be called biased or prejudiced against Tigers or Germany:
_*The Villers Bocage Mystery*
Just about anyone interested in Tiger tank battles will know of many accounts concerning the action of the "tank commander with the highest number of kills" Obersturmfuhrer Wittmann. *Unfortunately, most of
them do not know that almost all these accounts are completely untrue!* .............................
............................ Overall, the British lost 26 tanks, 14 M3s, eight Bren Carriers and eight Lloyd Carriers. Meanwhile, the 3rd Company reached Falaise. The following day, the general commanding I SS- Panzerkorps, SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Dietrich
nominated Wittmann fora Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oakleaves and Swords. This was awarded on June 22nd 1944, along with promotion to the rank of Hauptsturmfuhrer.Some of the terms of the nomination for this award are noteworthy:
- «the Wittmann company... was... near Hill 213...
ready for cornbat»
- «Wittmann could no longer issue orders to his men
who were some distance away...»
- (at Villers-Bocage, after having to evacuate, being
immobilized): «he further destroyed... all the vehicles
within range...»
- (after reaching Panzer-Lehr-Division headquarters):
«he set off again for Villers-Bocage... engaged (the
1./SS 101)».
- the number of tanks destroyed is noted as being
25.
Let us review what actually happened.
In examining these events, they should not be taken lightly! We have to think of the following:
Wittmann was well-liked by his subordinates and was appreciated by his superiors. In the Balkans campaign and particularly on the Eastern front, he had fought bravely and destroyed many enemy tanks with his Sturmgeschutz and later his panzer.
On the morning of June 12th 1944, the situation was not at all clear. 
The decision to attack an enemy about to carry out a decisive breakout had to be taken.
Wittmann's own action was energetic and courageous.
However it raises a whole string of questions *It is easy to judge the contents of the award nomination drafted by Sepp Dietrich. All the afore mentioned assertions are downright untrue.* Wittmann's company was not ready for battle (see below); the panzers were not «some distance away";
there was enough time to issue orders; after being hit in the tracks, the crew ran away, it could not attack any other targets; during the attack by Mobius's company, Wittmann had not yet reached Panzer-Lehr Division headquarters; he took no part in the attack on Villers-Bocage. The reader can quite easily work out how many shots were on target: seven. And even if we take into account the artillery observation tank «armed» with a wooden gun and the light Stuart tanks, *the number still does not come to 25.* This leaves the reference to the fact that the threat of serious danger was removed by Wittmann's determined action. Normally speaking, the various grades of the Knight's Cross were awarded for individual feats that were «decisive for the battle», and not specially for a highscore. I will come back to this point later.
After the event, it is difficult to know whether there was enough time to wait until the company's other (three) panzers were in battleworthy condition. The fact that Sowa's panzer was able to follow quickly indicates that it would have taken just a few more minutes.
If the British had not put themselves in such a position as not to be ready for battle and had not been so lax, Wittmann could certainly hav destroyed several enemy vehicles, but obviously, he would have been stopped, at least by a shell in his tracks. The combat distances were fairly close, so that the Cromwell tanks, usually deprived of success, might well have hit the Tiger's flanks. This judgement presupposes that Wittmann could have fallen back int an observation position and waited for his panzers to join him, and then attacked with a much larger fighting force with the means of covering each other. Given that the British column was at a halt, obviously there was still some little time to issue orders (by radio, for example).
Even if several enemy tanks had advanced in the Caen direction from Hill 213, they would have passed the 1st Company by. The single-handed attack of an enemy-occupied town is not debatable. But that does not explain the point of it all to the reader.
Neither does the attack on Villers-Bocage which followed, by panzers, elements of Panzer-Lehr-Division and of 1./SS-101 almost at full strength, with no supporting infantry, follow the fundamental principle whereby tanks are supposed as far as possible to bypass any towns or face quick losses. In short, it can be established that the action by the two Tiger companies (partly with elements of the Panzer-Lehr-Division) averted the threat of a decisive British breakout. However, the critical remarks regarding the conduct of the operation still stand, as does the question of whether Wittmann's personal action was decisive in this operation.
In the days that followed, 101 took part in further battles for Cahagnes and with the 3rd Company, which arrived at Evrecy later on, before the British could first launch their attack towards the Odon River.
General Analysis
The action of the 1st and 2nd Companies of the schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101 was everything but awe-inspiring. SS-Panzerkorps propaganda then gave a decisively misleading account of it. How can this be explained?
First, we have to remember that - unlike the Wehrmacht - the Waffen-SS did not have a experienced tank arm. Compared with the brilliant exploits of the «old» (Wehrmacht) panzer divisions, the Waffen-SS could not hope for similar successes. At a pinch, the II SS-Panzerkorps's action in Russia, in the southern sector, during Operation Zitadelle in July 1943, commands respect. *So with Obersturmfuhrer Wittmann, Sepp Dietrich tried his utmost to manufacture a hero. On the Eastern front, the Knight's Cross was awarded for «kills», as were Oakleaves. This is all the more astonishing as, both in the Wehrmacht tank arm and among the tank destroyers, many soldiers had much higher scores*
As we know, the legend of the "Second World War tank commander with the highest number of kills" has been kept up to this day. This judgement is completely wrong, in terms both of the actual score and the tactics employed! A competent tank company commander does not accumulate so many serious mistakes as Wittmann made.
1. The company commander knows exactly the technical status of all his panzers. He does not place a
vehicle which has engine trouble at the head of a stationary column; the risk of blocking all the other panzers is just too great.
2. A sunken lane can afford some protection, but it is not a suitable standby base when the enemy's position is unknown. The major concern is for the panzers to be disposed in such a way as not to hamper their freedom of movement.
3. In a concentration sector, all battleworthy panzers are placed in alert positions. These positions and the
roads leading to them have to be carefully reconnoitered. When placed on the alert or when the concentration sector is attacked, upon orders, the crews join them individually. But when the morning alert came,
none of the company's tank commanders knew what to do.
4. After the first intelligence of the enemy, the company should have been placed on the alert at once with orders to ready itself for battle as quickly as possible. Invaluable time would certainly have been saved
and it could have regrouped before engaging the enemy. Such action would have been more effective.
5. As the enemy's position was not clear, it was all the more necessary to work out a well-conceived counter-attack. On the basis of observation relying on an overall view of the situation, valuable intelligence could have been obtained before engaging. Such overhastiness was uncalled for, as the next company (1./SS-101) was in a favorable position further north-east, and it could have attacked the enemy forces when they advanced.
6. The hasty, single-handed attack on the large and powerful British force may seem brave, but it goes against all the rules (no centre of gravity, no concentration of forces, importance of the moment of surprise). The action that followed by the bulk of the 2nd Company and by Mobius 1st Company came up against an enemy who had gone onto the defensive.
7. The carefree advance of a single panzer into a town occupied by the enemy is pure folly.
Thoughtlessness of this kind was to cost the "tank commander with the highest number of kills" his life on August 8th 1944, near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank._


Is this what you would call 'proof'?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Is this what you would call 'proof'?


I wouldn't think so. But interesting however.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> You are not the only one who has an interest and knowledge on Tank warfare during WWII.



And that is why I asked what books you had read. Once I know the titles I would understand how your opinions were formed. For example knowing you were using Kurowski would explain many things.
The tank kill claim dispute is really a no-contest. The Germans discounted 50% of their own crew claims and it is a fact that Wittmann could not have hit more than 11 British tanks at Villers. Strangely wittmann hit 11 and was awarded 21 roughly a 50% discount!


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I wouldn't think so. But interesting however.



Perhaps you have a better account. Please share it.
Is it possible you could list the position 21 tanks Wittmann is credited with and how he was able to hit 10 of them that were over a hill and out of sight of him at all times that day?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

Phew! Good read MK! Remember as a "kid" reading about Wittmann and take it in as a gospel and all that....
Always good to learn about new discoveries etc..


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> And that is why I asked what books you had read. Once I know the titles I would understand how your opinions were formed. For example knowing you were using Kurowski would explain many things.
> The tank kill claim dispute is really a no-contest. The Germans discounted 50% of their own crew claims and it is a fact that Wittmann could not have hit more than 11 British tanks at Villers. Strangely wittmann hit 11 and was awarded 21 roughly a 50% discount!


Fine, but it doesn't take away from Wittman at all as the best. 

Not just Kurowski but Patrick Agte as well as other forgotten authors.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Phew! Good read MK! Remember as a "kid" reading about Wittmann and take it in as a gospel and all that....
> Always good to learn about new discoveries etc..


Yes it is, history is as how it is written. One must be careful in believing everything that is told to him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2009)

Again there was overclaiming on all sides.

I still do not understand why you keep referring to one instance that you claim (excuse me that your sources claim) shows that Whitmann is such a terrible commander.

Please explain how one instance makes him so terrible.

Was it because he was German? Would your opinion be better if he had been an allied tank commander?

Was it because he was using the Tiger that you so claim to be over rated?

Was it because he made a bad decision in your opinion?

I just do not understand your logic. You keep referring to over claiming. No one is disputing that! How does that change the fact that he is a good tank commander? Even with over claiming he was still one hell of a tank commander! True or False?

Get off the over claiming! It was never an issue!

Either prove that he was a terrible commander or move on...


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Perhaps you have a better account. Please share it.
> Is it possible you could list the position 21 tanks Wittmann is credited with and how he was able to hit 10 of them that were over a hill and out of sight of him at all times that day?


 Most accounts I have heard are from the British survivors of the battle.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

Put it like this gents....

How fast can you load, aim, fire, reload, aim again and fire the next shot in a Tiger? Must become a real mess in the turret with all the empty shells, gunsmoke, making room to move and reload? I don't think that anyone would sit in the same spot to knock out, in this case "21" vehicles/tanks. He'd be moving around, which wouldn't help either with empty and still hot shells bouncing around. I don't think that you'd have time to throw them out of the turret either, you'd keep all hatches closed, right?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2009)

has anyone seen Battlefield Mysteries they did a pretty neat show with lots of CGI and use of modern technologies like GPS co-ordinated with aerial recce photos and physical evidence to track Wittmans last battle they came to a different conclusion to the stories about an Typhoon rocket or a Brit tank as they were to far away for their weapons to be effective but they gave to a Canadian company that was the closest unit to where Wittman was finished


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

Didn't they get knocked out by a shell that had hit them from behind and from above? Someone mentioned this to me.....


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Put it like this gents....
> 
> How fast can you load, aim, fire, reload, aim again and fire the next shot in a Tiger? Must become a real mess in the turret with all the empty shells, gunsmoke, making room to move and reload? I don't think that anyone would sit in the same spot to knock out, in this case "21" vehicles/tanks. He'd be moving around, which wouldn't help either with empty and still hot shells bouncing around. I don't think that you'd have time to throw them out of the turret either, you'd keep all hatches closed, right?


It is entirely possible. Try reading some of the accounts from the British point of view if you want a non-German account. His actual tally consisted of 5 Cromwell tanks, 1 Sherman Firefly, 2 M5 Honeys, 1 Sherman OP tank, 1 Cromwell OP tank, 2 anti-tank guns, and just over a dozen transport vehicles. Not bad!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2009)

Not bad on anyones account Amsel! Firefly's had a pretty nasty bite as well....


----------



## m kenny (Apr 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Not just Kurowski but Patrick Agte as well as other forgotten authors.



Kurowski is useless as a serious historian and Agte makes a saint of both Peiper and Wittmann, hardly a balaced biographer.




Amsel said:


> Yes it is, history is as how it is written. One must be careful in believing everything that is told to him.



Except when it is by Kurowski or Agte?




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again there was overclaiming on all sides



Forgive me but if you know that then why do you accept the kill claim lists that are inflated?.



> I still do not understand why you keep referring to one instance that you claim (excuse me that your sources claim) shows that Whitmann is such a terrible commander.



You are taking the argument to extremes. This always happens when you question German claims. No one said he was terrible-simply that he was not the great tactician he is claimed to be. You can not shout 'prove it' and then dismiss the example that has cast-iron proof that his kill claim was inflated and he lacked proper sommand ability. If you disputre any of the facts I post then now is your chance to show where they are wrong.



> Please explain how one instance makes him so terrible.


More exageration. He was certainly lacking in judgement-see his disaster at Cintheaux.



> Was it because he was German? Would your opinion be better if he had been an allied tank commander?


Silly argument. If you don't like the message shoot (or discredit) the messenger.



> Was it because he was using the Tiger that you so claim to be over rated?



I simply wonder why it is still believed a man supported directly by 2 other Tigers and assisted by several others is touted as holding up an entire Division single handed when in reality he attacked 3 Artillery OP tanks, 2 Stuarts I Firefly and 5 Cromwells.



> Was it because he made a bad decision in your opinion?


He was just an ordinary soldier. His misfortune was to be hyped out of all reality. 



> I just do not understand your logic. You keep referring to over claiming. No one is disputing that! How does that change the fact that he is a good tank commander? Even with over claiming he was still one hell of a tank commander! True or False?


I confine my thoughts to those things I have some understanding off. In Normandy he came a cropper. I leave Russian tactics to those who know the territory.
Schneider expalins how his thirst for glory at Villers lost them the chance to cut off an entire Armoured Regiment . Because of his gung-ho charge the follow up attack by the 1st kpTigers was defeated. Perhaps you believe attack by a single tank into the center of an enemy held town is a good idea?




Amsel said:


> It is entirely possible. Try reading some of the accounts from the British point of view if you want a non-German account. His actual tally consisted of 5 Cromwell tanks, 1 Sherman Firefly, 2 M5 Honeys, 1 Sherman OP tank, 1 Cromwell OP tank, 2 anti-tank guns, and just over a dozen transport vehicles. Not bad!



Wittmann was supported by 2 Tigers firing down the road he used. It is not known which vehicles/tanks were hit by these Tigers and so it is entirely likely Wittmann did not destroy 11 tanks (glad to see you now acept he did only get 11 at most) One of the supporting Tigers was knocked out-as was Wittmann's


----------



## Amsel (Apr 19, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Kurowski is useless as a serious historian and Agte makes a saint of both Peiper and Wittmann, hardly a balaced biographer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 19, 2009)

avideo clip done in CGI from the show Battlefield Mysteries on Wittman

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGrnQSb8JsA_


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2009)

Deffo gonna watch that program!

Don't remember if Otto Carius had the same at Malinava something, Haven't read much about that action, difficult to do that now as all my books here, are where I store my furniture....including Tigers In The Mud. 
But as someone mentioned here earlier that the SS was eager to make a panzer star of one of their boys to compete with the army tank commanders.
Is it the same hype there as with Wittmanns V-B?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2009)

My vote would be for Franz Bake. Bake was one of the outstanding tank commanders of the war. An Infantry Corporal in WWI (decorated as a teenager with the iron cross 2nd class), he qualified as a dentist before joining the reserves in 1937. Her was called to the colours in 1939, serving initially in a recon unit, before being given his first command just before the BOF. He was assigned the command of an AT Platoon. He became a tank commander (again in charge of a platoon), before the invasion, rising steadily through the ranks. At Kursk he temporarily was given command of Panzer Regiment 11, before being formally assigned as a regimental commander in November

Early in 1944, Bake was given command Schwere PG Bake, a special group incorporating the remnants of 503rd Hy tank Bn and the 11 Pz Regt. This special unit included 123 Panthers and 34 Tigers, so it was a powerful unit. It also had a number of Hummel SPG from 1st Bn 88 Artillery Div. Its Infantry was light but included combat engineers. It was put together specifically to work as a fire brigade, where the germans would encourage the Russians to penetrate at a certain point. The salient would then be shut by Infantry, and the PRB used to work the enmy flanks and rear, and annihilate the pocket. Bake was devastatingly successful at this tactic, and developed it to near perfection. This is, incidentally beyond reproach, his abilities have been so well documented (included a few Soviet sources, apparently, and because the Germans were nearly walways left in control of the battlefield, able to be accurately verified by the germans (rather than just have them guess which is usually what they were redeuced to when they were forced to retreat prematurely) 



Early in 1944, at the Balabonowka pocket, Pz Rgt Bake (PRB) engaged the III Tank Corps, in a gruelling five day battle. Bake deployed his Tigers in the centre, while the faster more agile Panthers formed two wedges on either flank. By the end of the battle, 267 tanks (nearly all of them Hy types) and 156 SPGs had been destroyed or captured (and the Germans left in temporary control of the battlefield (which is conveneient, because that allowed the Germans to count the numbers of destroyed AFVs in detail). German loses were just 1 Tiger, and 4 Panthers 

This was not his only engagement, however I believe it was his most successful. Certainly the german High command thought so, they awarded him the swords for the oak leaves he already held. He was also awarded four I"Individual Tank destruction Badges", each given for the single handed destruction of 5 tanks. But this last honour is hard to verify, so i am not going there 

An impressive feat, by any measure, and one that Bake came close to repeating many times subsequently. He was, in my opinion, the best tank commander of the war


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2009)

Great info there Parsifal, thanks!


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2009)

Well m_kenny, since you think you have overwhelming proof to support your case then how come no'one here believes you ? Think about that for a moment.


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2009)

Also before we get ahead of ourselves and start believing m_kenny who is accusing Wittmann of being a liar as-well as all Germans to be dumbkopfs filled with nothing but their own pride, lets remember that Wittmann himself claimed 11 to 15 tanks knocked out at Villers Bocage that day. 

m_kenny is a very well known character from amongst other forums such as Axis History Forum, and he has always been very biased towards the Allies and a true hater of the Tiger tank. He has alawys tried his best to discredit the true achievements of German tankers their tanks. He has never been seen as an objective researcher, and rightly so. 

If I were you guys I'd try asking him wether he could provide proof of the German high command ALWAYS cutting claims in half. If he can't provide the original document stating this, then either he's lying or he is basing his knowledge on someone elses writing research which we know nothing of.

And as for my figures for the Battle of Kursk, they are derived from both the original German Soviet loss records.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> If I were you guys I'd try asking him wether he could provide proof of the German high command ALWAYS cutting claims in half. If he can't provide the original document stating this, then either he's lying or he is basing his knowledge on someone elses writing research which we know nothing of.



Start here:

_Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from *"Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.*
_







from:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

And here:

_"During 1943 the Red Army lost (total write-offs) 23,500 tanks and
assault guns.51 Between 1 January and 30 June 1943, 5,747 tanks and
assault guns were completely lost to the Red Army. "This would indicate
a total loss of 17,753 tanks and assault guns during the second half of 1943.
Over the same period the German combat units reported the destruction
of 30,668 tanks and assault guns. "The German high command did reduce
this by 50 per cent to compensate for double counting and repairable
vehicles and accordingly settled for a total of 15,334 tanks and assault guns
destroyed"._ 

Page 126 of the book 'Kursk 1943, A Statistical Analysis' (see below)





> And as for my figures for the Battle of Kursk, they are derived from both the original German Soviet loss records.



You should inform Zetterling. He seems to have gotten it completely wrong.


_"For the Central Front one author states that the tank losses between 5
and 15 July amounted to 651 vehicles lost irretrievably.64 If to this is added
the numbers given above for the Voronezh Front *the Red Army would
have lost 1,905 tanks completely destroyed or captured by the enemy*.
However, Krivosheyev's book states that the total losses of the defensive
phase at Kursk were 16l4 tanks and assault guns (see Table 8.13)."_

Page 127 of the following:

Amazon.com: Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis (Cass Series on the Soviet (Russian) Study of War): Anders Frankson: Books


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2009)

lol that doesn't prove overclaiming at all m_kenny! You're just speculating and cherry picking as usual!

The German high command just seems to have taken into account that a very great deal of the enemy material knocked out could be salvaged because it was infact the Russians who were moving forward and thus were able to retrieve their material.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> The German high command just seems to have taken into account that a very great deal of the enemy material knocked out could be salvaged because it was infact the Russians who were moving forward and thus were able to retrieve their material.



Get someone to translate this for you.







Nothing can change the fact that crew claims were officialy recognised to be 50% higher than reality.
You asked for the documentation and you got it.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2009)

and we are off......


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2009)

I speak German m_kenny, I can read what it says. And like I said, the German high command just took into account that knocked out tanks were recovered, just as it says. Double claiming is mentioned, yes, but it probably didn't take up more than 10%, the rest is vehicles recovered repaired.

So the German tanker's claims might very well be correct in that they hit and took out 90% of the number listed, but 50% or so got back into action because the Soviets were advancing.

So sorry, but you have proven nothing yet.


----------



## Soren (Apr 20, 2009)

Btw, eventhough I can read speak German pretty sufficiently I have to ask wether this is some sort of forgery ? Why ? Cause I've never heard of the word "Absug" before. "Absuch", yes, but Absug... no.. and I frankly find it very hard to believe that the German high command would make such a misspelling (If it is one). If it is infact a German word then just look past this, but still;

Where did you get this document from ? How do you know it's genuine ? BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY how can you conclude from ONE SINGLE report that the German high command always reduced claims by 50% ?? And last but not least, how in the world can you attribute allmost all of the 50% to doubleclaiming ??!! Esp. seeing that it is VERY well known that a VERY high percentage of tanks knocked out of action in combat got repaired to working order afterwards.

Sorry m_kenny but your case is just way too far out for anyone to believe. You're cherry picking as always making your own far fetched conclusions along the way.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 20, 2009)

Doesn't Abzug mean "to withdraw from" or "moving away from"?

My German is rusty, so I may be wrong


----------



## m kenny (Apr 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> I have to ask wether this is some sort of forgery ?



Ask all you want. Its genuine and nothing can change the fact that German crew claims were 50% higher than reality. Every ace list total should be reduced by half. 



> Why ? Cause I've never heard of the word "Absug" before. "Absuch", yes, but Absug... no.. and I frankly find it very hard to believe that the German high command would make such a misspelling (If it is one). If it is infact a German word then just look past this,



It means discount or deduction. You really are out of your depth here.



> . seeing that it is VERY well known that a VERY high percentage of tanks knocked out of action in combat got repaired to working order afterwards.



So now you say we can include every damaged tank as a kill? Great!
Looking at the Combat Reports for 2nd kp sSS PzAbt 102 for July/Aug 1944 we see that Tigers 211, 212,213,222,223,224,233,234,241 and 242 were all damaged at some point and had to go for repair. Can we then say these 10 tanks should be included in the British kill totals along with 221, 231 and 232 which are the only ones totaly destroyed?
This would also mean the 137 Tigers and Panthers repaired by 1 SS Pz.Korps 16 June-14 July 1944 should also be counted as Allied kills?
sPzAbt 503 listed 39 Tigers as combat ready on the night og July 17th 1944.
The night of 18/7/44 they only had 9 fit for action. Can we include those 30 Tigers as British kills?
Using damaged tanks as legitimate kills would mean that we could award some 5000 German tanks as kills in Normandy.
I love it when a true believer does not think through his excuses!

First you said there were no documents............wrong!
then you say they are fake...................wrong!
next you say the words are not German...................wrong
What is your next excuse?

It is odd that in all this demands for proof and sources you have yet to show us the documents that lead you to believe 6000 Soviet tanks were lost at Kursk.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2009)

Collins German to English dictionary:

Abzug

Translation Abzug in the German-English Collins dictionary

It is a word, but it has a number of meaning according to this translation


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2009)

There is not even the slightest chance of the Soviets ever losing 6000 tanks at Kursk. According to the latest research they lost 1080 heavy types and 220 Lights. However, all but 200 of the heavies were returned to service. 

That bit of MKs argument I can accept. But MK you need to tone down your acrimony of the German tank specialists if you wnat this audience to believe you and Soren you need to look at sources other than the ones you are relying on at the moment. Both of you lose all your credibility when you start down this childish path . That applies to both of you. You can take from me now, or you can wait until the Mods step in. Either way I dont care. 

The insistence by both of you to deal in absolutes, blind to any other possibility other than what you think you know as the truth is very off-putting to the other members of this forum


----------



## m kenny (Apr 20, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Collins German to English dictionary:
> 
> Abzug
> 
> Translation Abzug in the German-English Collins dictionary



Yes, the simplest Google would have revealed this. One has to wonder at the competence of anyone making such a basic and fundemental error. 
In the context where the word was used it clearly refers to a deduction (or discount) of 50% A total of 16251 troop kill claims is reduced to 8125.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 20, 2009)

Same with Parsifal, you're both knowledgable in tank warfare, but you need to tone down the attitudes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 20, 2009)

Actually Abzug is a type of noun that can have a number of meanings depending on how it is applied in the sentance, the German language much like many older dialects have a good number of words like this.

I can appreciate a spirited debate, especially when it is of a fact finding nature.

But to sit here and watch this thread degrade into a mudslinging match is bullshit. Seriously.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 21, 2009)

parsifal said:


> if you what this audience to believe you and Soren you need to look at sources other than the ones you are relying on at the moment



So far the only figures I used are the Russian loss totals for Kursk quoted in Zetterlings book. Can you point me to a better source?
For Villers Bocage I use the number of tank wrecks on the road used by Wittmann (Eight) added to the number (three) he says he fired at on the other side of this road. The 8 wrecks are all photographed in situ the next day and thus are 'absolute'. 
The remaining 3 are described in Wittmann's own account recorded the same night.
Is there a source that is more complete than Wittmann's testimony the Daniel Taylor or Agte books?



> the insistence by both of you to deal in absolutes, blind to any other possibility other than what you think you know as the truth is very off-putting to the other members of this forum



The 'fact' is the 50% reduction was applied to all German claims. That is an absolute fact. I even posted the except from Zetterling where he mentions it.
I also posted the page from 'Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn' that shows a period document showing how a 50% reduction was applied to 16251 tank kill claims in July and August in 1943.
I am not blind to the possibility some things are open to interpretation. However that does not mean everything is. We have fixed points that can not be ignored. Saying things like 
_lets remember that Wittmann himself claimed 11 to 15 tanks knocked out at Villers Bocage that day_ 
is simply untrue. 
He actualy said 
_"I first knocked out 2 tanks from the right of the column, then 1 from the left................I drove toward the rear half of the column on the road, knocking out every tank that came toward me as I went_"
Thus he claimed 3 tanks only. He does not mention any other numbers. It just happens that the stretch of road he was on was photographed extensively by the Germans themselves and you can count the 8 tanks that were knocked out on it. 8+3 is the max number of tanks he could have knocked out. It was physicaly impossible for Wittmann to have hit any more than those 11. The award citation for Wittmann mentions 15+6 tanks but that was written by Dietrich. Just because someone believes it was 15 will not make it 15. Neither will a search of 'other' sources help because there is no better source than Wittmanns own words and the post battle photos.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

For once I actually think Wiki i well documented on the matter:

_At approximately 0900 Sergeant O’Connor, travelling towards Point 213 in a half-track, broke radio silence to give the only warning to British forces in and around Villers-Bocage before the German attack began.[57] A single Tiger tank, commanded by Wittmann, drove onto Route Nationale 175 and engaged the two rearmost tanks from A Squadron 4CLY, positioned on Point 213, destroying a Cromwell and Sherman Firefly.[56] Shortly afterwards two Cromwell tanks of A Squadron were knocked out by Tigers 221 and 223 (commanded by SS-Unterscharführer Georg Hantusch and Jurgen Brendt respectively.[2]), which had been making their way up to Point 213 via a wooded track[58] around 200 meters south of the main road.[34]

Following the destruction of the two rearmost tanks, Wittmann proceeded down Route Nationale 175 towards Villers-Bocage, and in the following minutes destroyed the mechanized transport of the 1st Rifle Brigade parked at the side of the road along with two QF 6 pounder anti-tank gun. As the riflemen had dismounted from their transport minutes before the attack began, they took the opportunity to take cover in the hedges and fields nearby when the firing started and suffered few casualties.[2] Some French sources, along with British eyewitness accounts of the fighting, report that two Tigers engaged and destroyed the transport of the Rifle Brigade and that it was not solely Wittmann's Tiger.[59] It is speculated that the second Tiger tank was positioned north of the main road, near the road junction to Tilly-sur-Seulles, and possibly out of fuel.[59] Wittmann's Tiger continued into Villers-Bocage driving down Georges Clémenceau Street.

There are conflicting accounts regarding what happened next and the number of tanks and vehicles destroyed by Wittmann and his crew. It is claimed by several historians that Wittmann's Tiger entered the town and quickly engaged and destroyed 3 M5 Stuarts of the 4CLY reconnaissance troop,[58][60] although other accounts, including a retrospect by Taylor,[61] dispute this[62] and photographs taken following the battle only show 2 destroyed tanks on the main road,[63] and then destroyed the 4CLY medical officer's half-track and the intelligence officer's scout car,[64] although no wreckage from these last 2 vehicles are visible in the post action photographs.[65] Following these events Wittmann's Tiger pushed further into Villers-Bocage and engaged the Cromwell tanks of the 4CLY regimental headquarters and the two artillery observation post tanks ("OP tanks") of the 5th Royal Horse artillery.[66]

Accounts differ as to the exact circumstances of Wittmann's disengagement. Drawing on testimony from British tankers in Villers-Bocage, the historians Forty and Taylor record that Wittmann duelled briefly and without result with a Sherman Firefly commanded by Sergeant Stan Lockwood before withdrawing[67][68] while Bob Moore, of the 4CLY, claims a shot from his tank was responsible for denting the driver visor on the Tiger tank that forced it to withdraw.[69] Their accounts then report that this move brought Wittmann face to face with a surviving Cromwell tank, of the regimental headquarters, commanded by Captain Pat Dyas who had followed the Tiger down the road seeking a shot at its thinner rear armour. Dyas opened fire without effect, before Wittmann returned fire and destroyed the Cromwell.[70] Wittman's Tiger is then said to have continued eastwards before being disabled by a British 6 Pounder anti–tank gun, under the command of Sergeant Bray, on the outskirts of Villers-Bocage at the road junction to Tilly-sur-Seulles,[71][72] however in his book on the Rifle Brigade Major Hasting omits this and claims Sergeant Bray is credited with the destruction of 2 halftracks and an armoured car.[73]

Wittmann's own account however contradicts this sequence of events. He states that his tank was disabled in the town centre and photographic evidence, taken after the event, of the Tiger tanks knocked out in Villers-Bocage corroborates this position.[74][75] This version means that Wittmann can not have engaged Dyas in the manner described above. Lieutenant Cloudsley-Thompson thinks that Dyas confused the sequence of events, believing instead that Dyas was hit by a shot from the Tiger as it traversed its turret rearwards whilst it advanced into Villers rather than meeting it head on as it withdrew.[69]

Within the space of only 15 minutes, Wittman's Tiger had destroyed between 10-11 tanks,[76] 2 anti-tank guns and 13 personnel carriers. A further 3 tanks were destroyed by the two Tigers near Point 213.[77] While most accounts of the battle suggest that Wittmann and the crew of his Tiger were the only Germans to enter the town that morning, British eyewitness accounts suggest otherwise, with men from the 4CLY reporting German troops firing at them from the upper floor windows of houses within the town.[69][78]

On Point 213 Lord Cranley and Major Wright, of the Rifle Brigade, held a short conference where they decided to hold their position and await reinforcements.[79] Lord Cranley attempted to organize an all round defence of the hill with the forces available: 7 Cromwell and 2 Firefly tanks of the 4CLY, 1 Cromwell OP tank of the 5RHA, two scout cars, three half-tracks, several officers and NCOs and around ten riflemen of the 1st Rifle Brigade.[79][80] Around 1000 hours SS-Panzergrenadiers of the 4th Escort Company of Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 arrived.[81] The Panzergrenadiers began to engage and round up the men trapped on the hill, around 1030 hours Lord Cranley reported over the radio that the position was untenable and withdrawal impossible.[81][82] Within half an hour the radios in Lord Cranley’s scout car and in all remaining tanks were off the air[81] and by 1300 hours the hill was fully in German hands.[83] Few managed to escape, Captain Christopher Milner MC of the Rifle Brigade spent the rest of the day on the run crossing back into British lines after dark,[84] whilst Corporal Hoar of A Squadron 4CLY, did not return to his unit until June 25.[82]_


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 21, 2009)

Kenny,

Pages of posts and you still have not proven anything other offering the odd scrap of information here and there. If you want to discredit his claims or prove he over claimed a great deal. Then argue and disapprove his every battle and claim.....show some kind of pattern in his claims. You are posting very much the same way in this thread as you did in the following thread: 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-favourate-tank-west-708.html

Where to most people's ammusement you refussed to admit the Tiger was the better tank in a one on one battle then the Sherman. 

You really are starting to sound like someone just bias towards German or Axis heros or equipment. I really don't care whether Wittmann is the greatest tank commander or not but what I find amusing is that you claim this and that but prove nothing so far. If you were in a court of law trying to prove you case beyond a shadow of doubt you would lose at this point.

You are knowledgeable on tanks and tank warefare but I also believe you are bias from your posting habits. Dispute Wittmann's claims on facts alone. Show multiple patterns of significant over claiming throughout his carreer (again not that the allies also did not over claim but we are talking about Wittmann here now). Then and maybe then I and others here might believe you.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Regarding the Battle of Kursk:

The Battle of Kursk


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2009)

m kenny said:


> So far the only figures I used are the Russian loss totals for Kursk quoted in Zetterlings book. Can you point me to a better source?
> 
> 
> Mk its a grammar error on my part. There should be a full stop in front of the word "and"
> ...


----------



## m kenny (Apr 21, 2009)

Hunter368 said:


> Kenny,
> Pages of posts and you still have not proven anything other offering the odd scrap of information here and there.



_the odd scrap of information_? I had provided more actual sources and references then everyone else combined. No matter. I doubt you have an open mind on the subject



> If you want to discredit his claims or prove he over claimed a great deal.



I did prove it for Villers. If you disagree then show how he knocked out 21 tanks 


> Then argue and disapprove his every battle and claim.....show some kind of pattern in his claims.



I proved there was systematic overclaiming by german tank crews. So much overclaiming that a 50% reduction had to be applied across the board. 



> Where to most people's ammusement you refussed to admit the Tiger was the better tank in a one on one battle then the Sherman.



You are confused. I never said any such thing. I consider the mythical 'one on one' scenario juvenile and completely absurd. Tanks fight in Units. There might be some who see tank warfare as a form of jousting where individuals fight in isolation between the lines. I prefer the reality where tanks operated as part of an integrated military machine. You overwhelm and subjugate your enemy rather than give him a chance in some sort of 'fair fight'. Its no good swanning about in your 5 super-panzers when the Infantry Divisions holding your flanks are ground into the dust by 100 bog-standard man killers.



> You really are starting to sound like someone just bias towards German or Axis heros or equipment.


To me you sound like someone who simply can not accept that others do not share your high opinion of German tanks.



> I really don't care whether Wittmann is the greatest tank commander or not but what I find amusing is that you claim this and that but prove nothing so far.



I don't care either. However if you claim he was some sort of genius I will continue to remind you where he got it wrong..



> Dispute Wittmann's claims on facts alone.


I have. Several times with lots of facts. No one has yet bothered to give me a specific instance where they can show I got it wrong. Claiming I am wrong without giving specific examples of 'the wrong' have no effect upon me.



> Then and maybe then I and others here might believe you.



I find that most people are loath to admit their perceptions may be wrong. I do not seek to convert the faithful. I hope that by giving solid references and examples to back all my points the casual reader will draw the right conclusions.



Soren said:


> For once I actually think Wiki i well documented on the matter
> 
> _Within the space of only 15 minutes, Wittman's Tiger had *destroyed between 10-11 tanks,*_



Which is what I have been saying all along. Note that this is not the 21 claimed and added to Wittmann's score. It seems you now agree with me?
By the way you are quoting most of my own conclusions back at me-check who contributed!

General observation on overclaiming:

_2.Leutnant Friederich Anding-18 kills 
Friederich received his KC for the destruction of 6 tanks and 5 armored vehicles (so says his Verleihungsvorschlag zum Ritterkreuz), as adjutant of the Pz.Jg.Abt. Großdeutschland (commander of the battalion was Maj. Walle) on 8 May 1945. This action took place in northern Germany (more specifically in Stadensen) on 14-15 April. The battalion was attacked by a large number of enemy tanks and armored vehicles. Major Walle (9 destroyed tanks), Leutnant Anding and Obergefreiter Stützle (7 destroyed tanks) received KCs for their actions"_



As you can see 22 tanks are claimed as destroyed in the action Stadensen. Note that armoured vehicles and tanks are claimed seperately.
If you were to check the History of the 6th Guards Tank Brigade you read:
_"the tank crews...soon discovered that the village was already swarming with German SPs and half-tracks manned by Panzer Grenadiers... the Germans had managed to hoodwink the men of the outpost company into thinking that they were British armour and had completely overrun them." It appears that the Coldstream tanks, guns, transport etc were crammed nose to tail in the village. After the fierce battle, 12 out of 13 German SPs were knocked out and 7 half-tracks were deserted. At least 150 German dead and 150 prisoners taken. The Coldstreams lost 2 tanks, one petrol three tonner, 2 M10s; the Glasgow highlanders lost most of their carriers, their command vehicle and practically all their transport with 30 dead and 30 missing. The platoon of sappers suffered heavily and their transport was wiped out._"

KC's awarded for 22 tank kills when the actual losses were 2 tanks and 2 SP's!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> Regarding the Battle of Kursk:
> 
> The Battle of Kursk



This is an okay source Soren, one that I use myself....but it does not say that 6000 Soviet tanks were destroyed in the battle....moreover it adopts the "narrow" definition of what was the battle of Kursk. Most western sources use the term "Battle Of Kursk" in a generic sense, covering the series of battles that raged around the salient in July through to August.

If you look at the "narrow" definition with current research, you will find a Soviet tactical defeat. It was doctored in the 1950s by the Soviets to make Krushchev look better than he actually was.....this is where the myth that it was a massive and heroic Soviet victory comes from.

If you take the wider, broader view of the battle, yet more myths arise, this time the myth that the Panzer waffe emerged unscathed and victorious. This is just as grotesquely untrue as the Soviet claims to victory at Prokorovkha. Facts are, the germans overall lost either a similar number or more tanks in the final wash up than the Soviets, because they were forced from the battlefield and could not recover all of the breakdowns and wounded AFVs in the same way as the Russians could


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2009)

In what timeframe did V-B take place? I have no idea how long it takes to make a Tiger's '88 ready to fire, I'd guess that they went in with one "in the pipe", right?

But from the first shot to the next it must take, I don't know 10-15 seconds depending on gunner and loader, fire-empty shell-load-aim-fire, or is that too long? And for all that firing, the cage behind the, must be getting rather full and some point that must add to the time as well as it needs to be emptied.

For anyone to knock out 21 tanks/vehicles at 10 seconds between firing would take roughly 3 minutes and that's without moving around, looking for cover, avoid getting hit by return fire, find better firing positions. At 15 seconds between firing, that is over 5 minutes. Also, this is that every shot is a hit and kill.....


----------



## Amsel (Apr 21, 2009)

It is entirely possible not to miss shots especially at closer ranges. The Tiger turret and optics were excellent for accuracy. Wittmans tank was hit , but a Tigers armor was superior and he was finally forced from the fight by a hit to the "hood".


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2009)

Was just think of the possibilities, missed shots, shells going straight through "soft targets", shells hitting anything except the target, rate of fire etc....
Knocking out 21 vehicles must have taken some time, as I doubt that he sat in just one place.

How did the rate of fire of the Tiger compare with other tanks, axis and allied?


----------



## m kenny (Apr 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> So the German tanker's claims might very well be correct in that they hit and took out 90% of the number listed, but 50% or so got back into action because the Soviets were advancing.



Can we apply the same standards to a German Unit?

Gross Deutschland reported 13 tanks lost during Kursk.

Let us examine their vehicle repair totals and see what really happened.

Gross Deutschland had 132 tanks operational on 5/7/43.
by 14/7/43 it had 40 operational. 
59 were in short term repair.
14 were in long term repair.
Thus 73 tanks were put out of action as well as the 13 total losses.
6 tanks simply disappeared of their books and vanished with no explaination.

So then 13 total losses, 70+ damaged and 6 vanished!
Can we say the Soviets 'took out' 89 tanks rather than 13?

source:
Operational Citadel Volume 1: The South. Page 73
JJF 2002
Amazon.com: Operation "Citadel", A Text and Photo Album, Volume 1: The South: J. Restayn, N. Moller: Books


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2009)

I have aquestion....to what extent were losses and kills innaccurately reported to satiate Hitler. As the war ground to its inevitable defeat of germany, the Nazis adopted the most draconian of methods to maintain discipline. This included summary executions without trial of anyone not considered to have fulfilled their duty. Though this murder of Germany's soldiery did not begin in earnest until after July 1944, Hitler was wont to fly into the most frightful rages at any time in the war,. For example, when faced with a situation report from Gehlen, the German master spy, that indicated some very nasty statistics about the Russians, Hitler wanted to have him shot for incompetence. Later it seems, gehlen actually underestimated Soviet strength. It was only the direct intervention by Guderian that saved Gehlen. Now, given that sort of environment, isnt it a high possibility that figures for the high command on kills and losses are going to be routinely misreported. Lots of people in the post war analyses have said that German figures are reliable, but I am not so sure. For example, Divisional numbers and strengths were routinely mis-reported simply to please Hitler, who drew a lot of comfort simply by knowing the numbers of Divisions that were in a given sector . If that is so (and it is) is it not also possible that figures on losses and kills are going to be suspect as well. And that does not take into account the simple fact that because they were retreating from mid -43 on, that verification of losses must have been difficult at the best of times?


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Parsifal,

I really think you are mistaking in assuming that the Germans lost anywhere near as many tanks at Kursk as the Soviets. Even the Soviets admitted far greater losses than what the Germans claimed to have inflicted.

Among experts it is generally accepted that the Soviets irrecoverably lost at the very least 1,614 tanks totally destroyed (Kirosheev), while the Germans lost around 190 to 235 tanks. The Soviet loss records however make it quite clear that in the actual battle they lost over 6,000 tanks, but according to Kirosheev around 4,400 or so were repaired and saw action again at some point.

And now regarding Hitler and his tandrums, while he certainly did get these he was despite what you think always given the correct numbers, and this was one of the great reasons behind his tandrums: He didn't like the reality of things that much. I remember reading about Hitlers generals often having to repeat themselves up to 10 times that the forces Hitler sometimes wanted moved around either no longer existed or were so drained that they couldn't possibly carry out his demands. So the German reports were accurate, probably the most accurate put out by any country, much to Hitler's displeasure. 

As for Hitler executing soldiers because they didn't succeed in their goals, this is also incorrect. German soldiers were not put on trial or executed for not achieving their prime goals. German soldiers were generally only put on trial or executde for directly disobeying orders, trying to demoralize other troops with unpatriotic speaches or for being involved in conspiracy against Hitler. Only in the Soviet army were ordinary soldiers executed for not achieving what was expected/demanded of them, and Generals had it even worse.

If German soldiers would've been executed just for not achieving what was expected or demanded of them, then a great deal of German generals would've been executed for that reason, but they weren't cause thats not how it was. The worst that could happen was they were excused from duty, like Guderian was for a while. The German soldier generals who did get executed were so because of either directly disobeying orders (You could get pardoned for that though) or being involved in conspiracy against the fuhrer,


----------



## m kenny (Apr 21, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I have aquestion....to what extent were losses and kills innaccurately reported to satiate Hitler.


It is a natural human trait to overestimate our abilities. We tend to see what we want to see. I see nothing sinister or deliberate in overestimating tank kills. Every nation did it. What is more it was a known failing and allowed for.
The Germans recognised it and introduced the 50% reduction to counter it
The problem lies in those who simply refuse to believe the German did it. They seems to think that Germany had some sort of kill confirmation procedure that could never get it wrong. If this was the case why was the 50% reduction rule introduced?


----------



## Juha (Apr 21, 2009)

Hello Parsifal
Re Your post #42 . All the serious books on Kursk I have read see the Battle of Kursk consisting at least the Operation Zitadelle, ie 5. – 15.7.43 and the battle around Prokhorovka only as a part of it, even if the high point of it. 

Soren’s number for Soviet losses of c. 6000 tanks and SUs, if really from Soviet docus, is in all probability typical Soviet loss report which gives number of tanks “lost” from units and incl total losses, those combat losses which were repairable and those “lost” temporary of permanently because of mechanical breakdowns. But if one uses those kind of losses for one side then he should use the same criteria also to other side. And back to Tigers at Prokhorovka, II SSPzCorps had only 15 Tigers combat ready on the eve of the battle of Prokhorovka, of which 10 belonged Tiger Coy of 3rd SSPzR. Where were the other 27 Tigers of the Corps, it had began the Oper. Zitadelle with 42 Tigers. 3 had been total losses, one from each SSPzRs but the rest were in workshops because of battle damage or mechanical defects. Some Tigers were temporarily knocked out many times during the advance. One must remember that Germans advanced and occupied battlefields up to 12 July so they were during that period the side which could recover damaged AFVs. In fact up to 15 July Germans were conquering more ground than they were losing on the southern side of Kursk Bulge. In fact on 15 July III PzCorps finally managed to make contact with II SSPzCorps south of Prokhorovka and so encircle part of Soviet 69th Army. So if one count all those Soviet tanks which went through repair shops during the Oper. Zitadelle as one should then also count all the German panzers which went through workshops as losses,

On Wittmann
IMHO one should not be too harsh on his actions at V-B, he unexpectedly saw strong enemy force doing very dangerous manoeuvre and moving into unprotected flank of German line but coming equally unexpectedly to halt and he seized the opportunity. Probably with hindsight not the optimum solution but in war it is better in unexpected contact to do something immediately than begin to think out the best solution to the situation, or at least that was what was taught in Finnish Army in 70s.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

m_kenney how in the world can you conclude that reducing claims by 50% was the rule rather than the exception ?? You're just making wild guesses now.

All the report clears up is that at Kursk specifically the claims were reduced by 50%, and that because it was known that a great deal of tanks which got knocked out in combat could later be repaired and be put back into action, esp. if the enemy was advancing. Double claiming was also addressed it says, something which could happen in large scale battles were more than one tank could come to open fire on the same target.

If you want people to ever believe you m_kenny then you need to be objective and leave your bias behind.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Btw, my vote goes for Otto Carious.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Forgive me but if you know that then why do you accept the kill claim lists that are inflated?.



Where have I said that I accept German kill claims? I have never said that. In fact I do not believe I have really talked about kill claims. 

Either show me where I have done so, or do not put words in my mouth. If you can not find that, then move on, because your argument on that matter is then a closed case.

Understand?

In fact I do not think that anyone here has been saying that Whitmann killed 20 or 30 or 40 tanks in one engagement. Everyone has agreed from the beginning that he only killed about 11 in the engagement you keep bringing up. That is why I find your argument annoying. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. It is not proving anything...



m kenny said:


> You are taking the argument to extremes. This always happens when you question German claims. No one said he was terrible-simply that he was not the great tactician he is claimed to be. You can not shout 'prove it' and then dismiss the example that has cast-iron proof that his kill claim was inflated and he lacked proper sommand ability. If you disputre any of the facts I post then now is your chance to show where they are wrong.



No I have not tried to prove anything wrong. I have stated over and over in almost every Armor thread on this forum that I do not have the greatest knowledge of WW2 Armor. It is more a side thing for me. Aircraft over Tanks anyday.

I just do not understand how you can say that he was a terrible tactician because you only source one engagement _over_ and _over_ and _over_ and _over_ and _over_ again.



m kenny said:


> More exageration. He was certainly lacking in judgement-see his disaster at Cintheaux.



Would you say the same thing about Monty or Eisenhower in N. Africa? Lets be honest now...



m kenny said:


> Silly argument. If you don't like the message shoot (or discredit) the messenger.



No it is a silly response to your silliness. I am trying to understand you. Its not happening...



m kenny said:


> I simply wonder why it is still believed a man supported directly by 2 other Tigers and assisted by several others is touted as holding up an entire Division single handed when in reality he attacked 3 Artillery OP tanks, 2 Stuarts I Firefly and 5 Cromwells.



Myths of combat. It happens all the time. Have you served in combat? If so, then you would know about the great stories told at the bar that go something like "No **** there I was...".

The only people that will ever know the 100% factual truth are those telling the story or those who lived it.

You can read 100 million books and unless you were there you are only going to know the "myth" or the so called "busted myth". What is the truth?



m kenny said:


> He was just an ordinary soldier. His misfortune was to be hyped out of all reality.



Are you qualified to say that? Don't start listing books. Books will never tell you what kind of soldier you are.



m kenny said:


> attack by a single tank into the center of an enemy held town is a good idea?



Never said that. I believe I even said it was probably a rash decision. I was not there, neither were you. I do not believe you can judge a whole career based off of one engagement or decision.

If we did that then all of these commanders would be considered terrible:

Rommel
Eisenhower
Monty
Patton

And probably every other commander in the history of warfare.



m kenny said:


> Wittmann was supported by 2 Tigers firing down the road he used. It is not known which vehicles/tanks were hit by these Tigers and so it is entirely likely Wittmann did not destroy 11 tanks (glad to see you now acept he did only get 11 at most) One of the supporting Tigers was knocked out-as was Wittmann's



And knocking out 11 (or 5 for all I care) tanks is a small feat. How many have you knocked out?



Soren said:


> Btw, eventhough I can read speak German pretty sufficiently I have to ask wether this is some sort of forgery ? Why ? Cause I've never heard of the word "Absug" before. "Absuch", yes, but Absug... no.. and I frankly find it very hard to believe that the German high command would make such a misspelling (If it is one). If it is infact a German word then just look past this, but still;



Abzug, it is spelled Abzug not Absug. It is a German word that means:

withdrawal
outlet
escape
deduction
deduction
discount

For someone who speaks and reads German, you might want to take some more lessons. Abzug is a very common German word used every day, and used in all sorts of contexts from banking to military...

*Aslo on a side note. This goes to all parties. I know this is going to be a heated discussion, that is fine as long is does not get out of hand. Once the insults starts flying, I will take action.*

*Do all parties understand?*


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Never used the word abzug before, seriously, but then again I don't use my German every day either, perhaps once a year. I can speak German though, but not perfectly by any measure.

If I want to say something about withdrawal I usually use the word Zurück.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> Never used the word abzug before, seriously, but then again I don't use my German every day either, perhaps once a year. I can speak German though, but not perfectly by any measure.
> 
> If I want to say something about withdrawal I usually use the word Zurück.



Zurück would not be used in the context of that document.

Zurück typically means back to go back. Abzug is the more correct term for that context.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Roger, you live in Germany so you must know


----------



## m kenny (Apr 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> m_kenney how in the world can you conclude that reducing claims by 50% was the rule rather than the exception ?? You're just making wild guesses now.


Sorry but it was a general rule applied to all claims. It was not introduced just for the Kursk operation. You started out by denying there was ever a reduction. At least you are going forward.



> If you want people to ever believe you m_kenny then you need to be objective and leave your bias behind.



Bias is when someone arguing about Kursk tank losses uses figures for Soviet tank losses from 3 seperate offensives (Kursk itself and Operations Kutuzow and Polkovodets Rumyantsev) against German losses for one of those operations.





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I just do not understand how you can say that he was a terrible tactician because you only source one engagement over and over and over and over and over again.


 The Villers Bocage example is the most famous and most quoted action connected with Wittmann. It is always mentioned as proof of his greatness. If I was not in this thread it would have been extensively quoted as proof of said greatness.It is copiously documented and photographed and thus is an ideal subject for sober analysis. I can not be faulted if every time someone shouts 'prove it' I am able to do just that.
I used 2 examples. One where he sped off on his own abandoning his company whilst he went deep inside an enemy occupied town,. He was knocked out and took no further part in the action in any capacity. 
The second was where he took his force of Tigers into an open field where he was taken in both flanks by enemy fire. Having 6 Tigers knocked out in a few minutes is hardly the mark of a prudent commander. Had he survived I doubt if he would have been commended on his actions.. .
Seems like a pattern to me. You may disagree but you can not say I do not have a case.
And of course I never said he was a terrible anything........................




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Would you say the same thing about Monty or Eisenhower in N. Africa? Lets be honest now..


There are lots of threads claiming Monty was incompetent, ect. I dont see you getting upset at his disparagement.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And knocking out 11 (or 5 for all I care) tanks is a small feat. How many have you knocked out?


Misses the point. I am not saying knocking out 11 tanks is a' small feat' I contend that knocking out 11 tanks is quite sufficient and there is no need to claim it was 21 tanks.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In fact I do not think that anyone here has been saying that Whitmann killed 20 or 30 or 40 tanks in one engagement. Everyone has agreed from the beginning that he only killed about 11 in the engagement you keep bringing up. That is why I find your argument annoying. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. It is not proving anything...


It goes right to the heart of my argument. I know that the german kill claims were reduced by 50%. This is the subject of dispute. Wittmann was OFFICIALY awarded 21 kills for Villers. He actualy got 11. Note that this is almost exactly a 50% reduction! I think this is a perfect example that proves the discount was needed. The German Generals got it absolutely spot on!


----------



## timshatz (Apr 21, 2009)

I am reading a book now, that is fairly good, about the Second World War. Specifically, Germany in the war. Name is "The Third Reich at War". Here is a link to it:

Amazon.com: The Third Reich at War: Richard J. Evans: Books

It is a well written book. Goes into some detail on production and details about the economics of the war. Well researched, although it tends to dwell on the Master Race crap and the Holocaust.

Anyway, the reason why I post this here is the segment about Prokhorovka. Most of us have heard it was the great battle of the Great Battle which was Kursk. Well, according to this author, it never happened. The story we are all told about ramming tanks and point blank fire from T34s is all a made up creation. 

According to this author, Prokhorovka was a turkey shoot for the Germans. Russians lost something like 250 tanks while the Germans lost 3. Reason the Russians lost so many was they did not see an anti-tank ditch that had been dug in the middle of the plain. First line piled in, other lines turned away from the ditch and rammed each other. And the Germans just shot them to pieces. The Author speculates the Russians might've been drunk. 

Also said the losses at Kursk were mostly on the Russian side, with German dead running around 50K and the Russian dead in the 200K to 300K range with comparable losses in other combat arms. 

Reason it the story was made up was to cover the huge screw up that was the battle. Said the story tells about clouds of dust, but it rained that day and the day before (according to German Army records). From Stalin all the way on down, everyone on the Soviet side was in on it. 

Thought I'd throw it out there. When I read it, I was pretty much caught off guard. I'd read the same story that everyone else had. But this was a totally different take on it. I, personally, am not sure what to think on this one. Too new. 

But it was a pretty interesting momment in reading the book.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 21, 2009)

*m_kenney said*


> The Villers Bocage example is the most famous and most quoted action connected with Wittmann. It is always mentioned as proof of his greatness. If I was not in this thread it would have been extensively quoted as proof of said greatness.It is copiously documented and photographed and thus is an ideal subject for sober analysis. I can not be faulted if every time someone shouts 'prove it' I am able to do just that.


 I always tend to look at his eastern front stories because they interest me more. The "ostfront" being the most interesting and less known front has been my main interest.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 21, 2009)

Interesting, thanks Tim! Might have a look at that book if I can find it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2009)

m kenny said:


> There are lots of threads claiming Monty was incompetent, ect. I dont see you getting upset at his disparagement.



I have never seen this disparagement. I have seen his mistakes discussed in manners that does not tarnish his service.

Most people do not judge his whole career based off of certain mistakes. To do such a thing is pretty ignorant and dumb.

That is the difference in my opinion.

So again I ask you to prove why he was so bad, based off of some mistakes. You can state your opinion all day long, but until you prove that he never did anything right or that he did more wrong over his whole career than he did right this is pointless.

I do however enjoy reading your posts though. Like I said, I enjoy reading about the armor of WW2 and increasing my knowledge of the subject.



m kenny said:


> Misses the point. I am not saying knocking out 11 tanks is a' small feat' I contend that knocking out 11 tanks is quite sufficient and there is no need to claim it was 21 tanks.



No you have the been missing the point the whole time. This was never an issue.



timshatz said:


> I am reading a book now, that is fairly good, about the Second World War. Specifically, Germany in the war. Name is "The Third Reich at War". Here is a link to it:
> 
> Amazon.com: The Third Reich at War: Richard J. Evans: Books
> 
> ...



That just goes to show that it all depends on what sources your choose. If you choose one source you will have a whole different "truth" than another source.

I believe the real "truth" lies somewhere between 2 different sources.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

> Sorry but it was a general rule applied to all claims. It was not introduced just for the Kursk operation. You started out by denying there was ever a reduction. At least you are going forward.



Rubbish. If you want people to believe that reducing claims by 50% was the rule rather than the exception then you're gonna have to prove it, so can you ?


----------



## Juha (Apr 22, 2009)

On the Battle of Prokhorovka
The real German losses could be seen already in Madeja’s book(let) in 1987, in fact one would notice that there was something fishy in the old story just by thinking and doing some checking on German OoB, that the story lived so long in anglo-american literature just shows how many of writers are lazy and don’t bother check the facts. The key is to use reliable books not necessary the most popular ones,

Soren
On reduction of German tank kill claims. As I wrote, up to 12 July it was the Germans who were advancing and occupying battlefields so they were during that period the side which could recover damaged AFVs. In fact up to 15 July Germans were conquering more ground than they were losing on the southern side of Kursk Bulge. So Your claim :

Quote:” All the report clears up is that at Kursk specifically the claims were reduced by 50%, and that because it was known that a great deal of tanks which got knocked out in combat could later be repaired and be put back into action, esp. if the enemy was advancing”

Didn’t fit very well on Oper. Zitadelle the southern side of Kursk Bulge. It fit better on the battles then on because after end of Zitadelle it was most often Russians who advanced and got hold on the battlefields.

And that claim that Soviet losses were c. 6000 tanks and SUs vs German losses of 235 tanks, were exactly you got the figures?

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Apr 22, 2009)

Juha said:


> And that claim that Soviet losses were c. 6000 tanks and SUs vs German losses of 235 tanks, were exactly you got the figures?



Page 262 of Krivosheev. 
What Soren is doing is using the total of Soviet losses for 3 operations:
Kursk Defensive Operations
Orel Offensive Operations
Belgorod-Kharrkov Offensive Operation

This overall total is compared to a German partial total. In fact the like v like losses were 1300 v 8100

In the book_ 'Zitadelle, The German Offensive Against The Kursk Salient 4-17 July 1943' _ Mark Healy 2008 makes note of this confusion on page 366



Amazon.com: Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4-17 July 1943: Mark Healy: Books



Soren said:


> If you want people to believe that reducing claims by 50% was the rule rather than the exception then you're gonna have to prove it, so can you ?



*"Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.*







Note the totals. 1331 German losses v 8125 Soviet.
The German claims were 16251.

For July-Dec 1943 German claims were 30,668 compared to Soviet losses of 17753
Source: Page 126 _'Kursk 1943' _Niklas Zetterling

Clearly the overclaiming was something other than a Kursk event!


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2009)

You haven't even come to close to proving that claims were in general cut in half m_kenny. You've got the losses for roughly a 2 month period, of which the majority was inflicted around Kursk.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 22, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That just goes to show that it all depends on what sources your choose. If you choose one source you will have a whole different "truth" than another source.
> 
> I believe the real "truth" lies somewhere between 2 different sources.
> 
> Does that make sense?



Yeah, pretty much. Need to get a ton of sources to figure out the reality of a situation. Even then, the results are open to interpetation (hence the reason for this board existing). 

Or, maybe Henry Ford was right. Maybe history is bunk!


----------



## Juha (Apr 22, 2009)

Hello MK
Or Soren’s source could also have been Karl-Heinz Frieser’s Die Schlacht im Kursker Boken p. 201 in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite WeltkriegBand 8. Because in the article there are different graphs for different time periods it is difficult to believe that one mistakenly took German losses between 5. – 16.7. and Soviet losses between 5.7. – 23.8.43 and then compares them as from same time period.

Timshatz and Adler
IMHO history is much more exact if studied properly. One must look original docus and also to understand for what purposes they were made originally and what possible errors they might contain. And of course if possible to look docus from both sides before one draws conclusions. Of course one also need critical and open mind and common sense.

Juha


----------



## timshatz (Apr 22, 2009)

Juha said:


> Timshatz and Adler
> IMHO history is much more exact if studied properly. One must look original docus and also to understand for what purposes they were made originally and what possible errors they might contain. And of course if possible to look docus from both sides before one draws conclusions. Of course one also need critical and open mind and common sense.



Juha, agree that history has something to teach us if studied properly. But it will never be a science, always something of an art. The problems with history, even orignial source documents, is they are subject to the same frailties that dog humanity and always will. For instance, there is a saying that newspapers are the first draft of history. But there are often, commonly, wrong. The stories in any given paper are subject to writer's perception and editor re-write as well as censoring and spin (if we are talking about military affairs). 

Further, even when you get down to original source documents ("I was there, I saw it all"), you are again dealing with perception. Any lawyer worth his weight in salt will tell you there are multiple points of view considered in any given event. In such a situation as history, the attempt (more often than not) is to develop a consensus of the event.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 22, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello MK
> Or Soren’s source was Karl-Heinz Frieser’s Die Schlacht im Kursker Boken p. 201 in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite WeltkriegBand



If it was I believe we would have been informed of as much by now. I think we can safely rule that tome out!



Juha said:


> Because in the article there are different graphs for different time periods it is difficult to believe that one mistakenly took German losses between 5. – 16.7. and Soviet losses between 5.7. – 23.8.43 and then compares them as from same time period.



Without the graphs (or at least a summary) it's impossible to comment.
That said on page 262 Krivosheev gives the total losses for all 3 Soviet Offensives as circa 6000. Whatever the period chosen for the German figure(c.250) it is clearly well short of the German total of over 1000 (depending on time period)
All the books written by respected researchers give the Soviet Kursk losses of 1300-1900. If it is now claimed they were 6000 then we should at least be given a reference so we can check the data. 
Despite repeated request the proponent of the 6000 claim has failed to supply any information as to a source. 



Juha said:


> IMHO history is much more exact if studied properly. One must look original docus and also to understand for what purposes they were made originally and what possible errors they might contain.


Errors sometimes occur. But believing figures and statistics must be wrong does not make them wrong. You can't refuse to accept data because you 'know' it is wrong.



Juha said:


> And of course if possible to look docus from both sides before one draws conclusions.


I could not agree more. If I read of Panzer Ace X knocking out 20 tanks in one engagement against Unit Y then I go and check Unit Y's losses BEFORE I accept the claim. I do that with every Normandy incident involving British Formations.



Juha said:


> Of course one also need critical and open mind and common sense.


Agree once again. If it sounds too good to be true then it usualy is!



Soren said:


> You haven't even come to close to proving that claims were in general cut in half m_kenny. You've got the losses for roughly a 2 month period, of which the majority was inflicted around Kursk.



Continue believing whatever you want. You have been given the information, I can do no more for you. The rule is established so forgive me if I ignore any future carping.

You can lead a horse to water but..............


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

Gents, what do we know about Otto Carius and his Malinava....I have his book, but it's stored away!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

Just thought that I'd show three books that I have with Tigers, that I remember. Unfortunately, they're stored away...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 22, 2009)

MIchael Witmann, Hugo Primozic from the german side and William Creighton Abrams from the allies side.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2009)

Thought I might advise that I have Franksons "Kursk A Statistical Analysis" on order. It should be arriving by early next week, and I will post extracts that are releveant to this discussion once I have my hands on this work. In my opinion it is probably one of the best single volume references on the whole Kursk issue.

I have read the book, but it was not my copy.....


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2009)

Well m_kenny then I must tell you that I only believe in the truth, and there are plenty of examples to draw from which prove that claims weren't reduced 50% as the general rule. You can take Wittmann's own claims for Villers Bocage as a matter of fact.

So I will repeat what I said: The 50% reduction was ONLY applied to Kursk, and that because of the confusing nature under which that battle was fought. 

And as for the true losses of the Battle of Kursk, we will never know it I'm afraid.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2009)

I agree that it may be difficult to get a completely accurate figure, and difficult for all of us to reach consensus, but it is still possible to achieve a better idea on losses. I have a great deal of confidence in Frankson and Netterlings Book, and there may also be others as well


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

Does more, I don't know, believable figures for schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502, 503 and 505 with their losses and kills of 107/1,400, 503: 252/1,700 and 126/900 exist?


----------



## m kenny (Apr 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> And as for my figures for the Battle of Kursk, they are derived from both the original German Soviet loss records.



Is it possible you could give us a source for these figures?




Soren said:


> And as for the true losses of the Battle of Kursk, we will never know it I'm afraid.



Maybe but how can everyone else say the Kusk (i.e. one battle) Soviet losses were under 2000 yet you say they were 6000?
Have you a reference where you saw the 6000 total. Please do not say Krivosheev. Below (page 262) shows this total is for a much larger area of operations.






The Russian losses of 6000 cover 5 July to 23 August. For the Kurk defensive stage (5th-23rd July 1943) they are listed as 1614 

German losses of 278 are for the period 5th-17th July only.










From Zetterling And Frankson, Kursk 1943, A Statistical Analysis, pages 121/122




Juha said:


> it is difficult to believe that one mistakenly took German losses between 5. – 16.7. and Soviet losses between 5.7. – 23.8.43 and then compares them as from same time period.



Is it difficult to believe now?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2009)

Those figures might not be truly comparable, and do seem to discredit the 6000 claim for the "narrow" Kursk. Nevertheless, Soviet losses are very substantial. Is the table for Soviet losses from Krivosheev, or some other source, and are these tank write offs, or were a portion returned? 

I have seen sources that say that the Soviets in 1943 lost 23000 tanks, and that 6000 of this number were lost in Jan-May 1943, the remainder in the last 7 months. That remainder is 17000 tanks, or an average of about 2500 per month. However, I also know that about 50% of these tank losses were repaired and could return to service which is consistent with with this notion of automatic 50% reduction in claims. Perhaps the German Intelligence people got wind on the proportions of Soviet knocked out tanks being repaired, and arrived at this 50% correction because of that????

I see lastly that you already have access to Frankson and Netterling. Do you agree that they are a great reference for Kursk???


----------



## m kenny (Apr 23, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Is the table for Soviet losses from Krivosheev,



Yes. They are total losses.





> I have seen sources that say that the Soviets in 1943 lost 23000 tanks, and that 6000 of this number were lost in Jan-May 1943,


23500 for 1943.
5747 Jan-June 1943.





> the remainder in the last 7 months.



17753 July-Dec 1943.



> However, I also know that about 50% of these tank losses were repaired and could return to service which is consistent with with this notion of automatic 50% reduction in claims. Perhaps the German Intelligence people got wind on the proportions of Soviet knocked out tanks being repaired, and arrived at this 50% correction because of that????



Do not be confused by those who try and wish away this 50% reduction. It was applied to every EF claim 1943-45.



> I see lastly that you already have access to Frankson and Netterling. Do you agree that they are a great reference for Kursk???



At least they give references for their totals............something we should all do!


----------



## Juha (Apr 23, 2009)

Hello MK
I also have a copy of Zetterling And Frankson and in Karl-Heinz Frieser’s book the loss info is in graphs, there are 4 sets of twin columns (one showing Germany’s tank and StuG losses one showing Soviet tank and SU losses) absolute numbers over the columns and each sets clearly labelled and period given, so in my sentence the stress was on the word mistakenly, knowingly one can of course pick one number from one set and other number from other set for whatever reason. 
Frieser’s figures for Zitadelle losses are 252 vs 1614/1956 and for the Battle of Kursk (5.7.-23.8.) ca. 760 vs 6064.

On Tigers according to Jentz’s Panzertruppen Vol 2 Germany lost in July 43 34 Tigers. One must remember that 2./sPzAbt 504 lost on Sicily 16 out of its 17 Tigers, most of them very early in the battle, partly thanks of the low performance of HG Div, so some 22-24 in the east. The old Mueller-Hillebrand’s Das Heer gives 33 Tigers lost in July 43. According to it Germany lost 645pz, 207 StuGs and 80 PzJgs in July 43. When one remembers that Germany lost 10.7. – 17.8.43 on Sicily 118 tanks and StuGs (out of 217) one gets a fair idea on the level of losses in East during that month.

Hello Parsifal
IMHO Z and F is a good source on the Zitadelle phase of the Kursk battle but you will need other good source for rest of the battles around Kursk bulge.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, pretty much. Need to get a ton of sources to figure out the reality of a situation. Even then, the results are open to interpetation (hence the reason for this board existing).



Agreed. People choose which sources and they only believe certain ones. It certainly makes for good convos most of the time.



m kenny said:


> I could not agree more. If I read of Panzer Ace X knocking out 20 tanks in one engagement against Unit Y then I go and check Unit Y's losses BEFORE I accept the claim. I do that with every Normandy incident involving British Formations.



While I agree with you that that is the best and logical way to go about this sort of business, loss claims will not always be correct either. Why?

Lets say Panzer X says they destroyed 10 tanks.

Unit Y says that only 5 were destroyed, and 5 were damaged.

Panzer X may have hit 10 tanks, but 5 were able to be repaired.

Panzer X is claiming 10 and Unit Y is claiming 5. Who is wrong? 

Neither of them is. You see this happen with the air kills all the time.


----------



## Juha (Apr 23, 2009)

Hello Adler
the point is to check not only the number of total losses but also the number of those sent to repairs and try to dig out the reasons of repairs, battle damages or technical defects, the last part being probable the most difficult to find out and only after that try to draw conclusions.

As I wrote the open and critical mind is the key plus toil and common sense.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Adler
> the point is to check not only the number of total losses but also the number of those sent to repairs and try to dig out the reasons of repairs, battle damages or technical defects, the last part being probable the most difficult to find out and only after that try to draw conclusions.
> 
> As I wrote the open and critical mind is the key plus toil and common sense.
> ...



Yes I know, and I agree. That is the same point that I have been trying to make.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 23, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While I agree with you that that is the best and logical way to go about this sort of business, loss claims will not always be correct either. Why?
> 
> Lets say Panzer X says they destroyed 10 tanks.
> 
> ...



I am well aware of the difference between a total loss and a damaged tank.

The problem I find is those who want to use German claims that include Allied damaged tanks NEVER EVER want to include damaged German tanks as Allied kills.
This is the root of the problem. 

We have Soren claiming that the German Kursk kill claims are not inflated because they just include damaged tanks.
Can we then have the huge number of German damaged tanks added to the Soviet score? 

Using the example I gave earlier:

Gross Deutschland reported 13 tanks lost during Kursk.


GD had 132 tanks operational on 5/7/43.
by 14/7/43 it had 40 operational. 
59 were in short term repair.
14 were in long term repair.
Thus 73 tanks were put out of action as well as the 13 total losses.
6 tanks simply disappeared of their books and vanished with no explaination.

Can we say the Soviets 'took out' 89 tanks rather than 13?

Using the damaged totals has a massive effect on German loss totals. GD's losses alone would 6 times the previous figure.

Totenkopf had 15 Tigers in action over the Kursk period but they had to have over 20 of them repaired (some more than once)
Just 1 of the 6 Tiger Units damaged totals would have a huge impact on the Tiger totals.

Can I have a straight answer. Should we include the German damaged tanks as Soviet kills?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2009)

m kenny said:


> I am well aware of the difference between a total loss and a damaged tank.
> 
> The problem I find is those who want to use German claims that include Allied damaged tanks NEVER EVER want to include damaged German tanks as Allied kills.
> This is the root of the problem.



I will agree with you on that. The problem is both "sides" of this argument want to make up there own criteria. We will never come to a conclusion like that.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

From who was the best tank commander to Kursk...


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2009)

m_kenny said:


> Do not be confused by those who try and wish away this 50% reduction. It was applied to every EF claim 1943-45.



I say if you can prove it then fine, if not then NO'ONE will have any reason to believe you. And to be honest I think your "general rule of 50% reduction" is VERY far fetched.

So prove it or leave it be as something you know absolutely ZERO about!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

Sasw that JJ Fedorowicz has two rather thick books as well on Kursk, Operation Citadel, A Text and Photo Album, Volume 2: The North by Jean Restayn (Iguess that Volume 1 was the south then) and Nicole Moller and Operation Zitadelle, July 1943, The Decisive Battle of World War II by Franz Kurowski....
Anyone read them?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2009)

Lucky, discussing Kursk is relevant because it is looking at the actual loss rates over the claims made, from the top down, so to speak, rather than from the grqss roots level. If we can establish some sort of true estimatre on loses at Kursk, and then compare that to the claims made, we can get a better idea of the error rate in the claiming.

Besides, understanding the Kursk battle is just interesting in itself


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

That's cool with me....I only asked at the beginning of the thread who you thought was the best tank commander. 

Don't get me wrong though, I follow the discussion and learn about Kursk. 8)


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2009)

Hi Soren

Can I suggest that you present your case rather than waste your time and decrease your own credibility baiting MK and others who dont align themselves with your own viewpoints. Youve got a great deal to offer this discussion, and particularly can help with the germn perspective. MK just happens to not share that view. IMO he has toned down his anti Germn rhetoric and is producing some very good source material. Can you start doing the same.....we want you to present your facts, your source material, not get into a stand up argument with you, or watch the spleen and bile sessions unfold on this thread......concentate on presenting your own case, and dont respond so directly to MKs posts. 

I just wish we had a Russian specialist who could present ths perspective in an objective fashion....


----------



## m kenny (Apr 23, 2009)

More OKH figures:

1 July 43 - 31 December 43 

30,668 Troop estimate 
15,344 Adjusted OKH estimate 

Note that the 50% reduction is again in play-and it is not confined to Kursk!


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2009)

I'd like to see those OKH figures.

Parsifal,

I'm not the one making claims here, I'm just stating the losses listed by both sides according to Kirosheev others, so I really don't have a case to defend. However m_kenny have come with the ridiculous claim that the German high command reduced all claims by 50%, which you I will have no reason to believe until he has proven it. So far he is doing miserably, listing letters numbers but not providing the original source.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 24, 2009)

Soren said:


> I'm just stating the losses listed by both sides according to Kirosheev



Where in Krivosheev?
Page and number or the figures and the dates they apply to.
What does Krivosheev say about losses for the Kursk Offensive phase?
Where does Krivosheev list 'both sides' losses? I have the book and I can not find anything about German tank losses.



Soren said:


> others,



What others?



AN example of why the reduction was needed:

_ "At that time, the presence of the Soviet 2nd Guards Tank Corps was unknown to the Germans
and it was purely by chance that its movement out of dense woods had been spotted by Hauptmann
Bruno Meyer, commander of the Hs 129 staffeln,who was returning to base after a patrol over the
front line. .....................
The account is taken up by Oberleutnant Dornemann, the Staffelkapitdn of
4/SchG. 1, who described how his 129s attacked theT-70s,T-34s and KV-ISs milling around on
the ground below:
My staffel together with other staffeln attacked in relays and the enemy suffered heavy losses.
Our pilots could see the panic-stricken response of the Russian tank crews and the retreating
armour presented splendid targets for us. Each pilot made his run in at low level and fired his
armour-piercing shell just at the right instan tjust like on the firing range.When we went in
for the kill, a steady approach and a well-aimed shot were vital to knock out a tank. I would
say that it was a real art. When the tanks were knocked out they belched fire and smoke.
Others did not get clear of those, which had been knocked out and collided with them.
For three hours the Germans wove their deadly dance.When finally they returned to base they left
behind a battlefield strewn with thousands of dead and *eighty gutted tanks.*
Subsequently, Hausser was to express some surprise after being informed that a major 
ground assault on his flank, of which he knew nothing, had been stopped in its tracks without
German ground forces being involved.
A reconnaissance flight over the area the next day *returned clear photographic evidence of 
the destruction wrought by the schlachtflieger formations."* _



A much quoted example heard many times over the years but the above is taken from page 277/278 of Mark Healy's '_Zittadelle_

This thread shows how absurd these claims are:

Tank Busting Aircraft at Kursk - The Dupuy Institute Forum

For those who just want the facts the thread proves:
_*this all points to the actual losses of the 26th Guards Tank Brigade being around nine tanks. *_
80 claimed and less than 10 actualy destroyed


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 24, 2009)

Kenny,

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that Germany claims were higher then actual kills really were. Everyone knows that about any war claims were higher then actual kills. Air or ground or sea.

Would suggest or claim Allied claims were 100% accurate? That they never overclaimed due to propganda or innocent mistakes.


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm still waiting to see some proof that the German high command always cut claims by 50%. Cherry picking for occasions were claims were far greater than actual losses doesn't prove squat, and m_kenny should know better than that. 

*Hunter,*

Spot on, everyone overclaimed, and the Western Allies were no better or worse at it than the Germans.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 24, 2009)

Hunter368 said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees with you that Germany claims were higher then actual kills really were



In my experience many do. They seem to be mainly from the ranks of those smitten by tales of lone tanks holding up entire Divisions. Even when confronted with cast iron evidence of the overclaiming many still try and claim one nation's claims are not as inflated as eveyone else's.



Hunter368 said:


> Would suggest or claim Allied claims were 100% accurate? That they never overclaimed due to propganda or innocent mistakes.



Where did I suggest such a thing? 
EVERYONE overclaimed.



Soren said:


> everyone overclaimed, and the Western Allies were no better or worse at it than the Germans.



What is all the fuss about then? 
Perhaps you could quantify the rate of overclaiming? 10%? 25%? 50%?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 24, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Where did I suggest such a thing?
> EVERYONE overclaimed.



I did not say you had, I just wanted to make sure you did not believe it. Everyone overclaimed due to propaganda and mistakes. Fog of war.


----------

