Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Hunter368]

Wow kenny,

I don't think I have every seen anyone make such a butthead out of themselves as you have.

You "claim" to have all these "facts" to prove us wrong??? Where I see none of them. Still have me asking ans asking you to post facts you have done nothing. All you have posted yet is numbers from France in 1944 which like I have twice now are totally not on subject. Would you like me to post fighter production numbers of German in 1944? If I did it would make about as much sense as the numbers you have posted. So despite you claiming to be a tank expert you have shown me nothing to even get me to check your numbers. You just say how the german tanks were not "that" good but you post no facts what so ever. When I person such as yourself claims to be a genuis about something and you can't back up your claims you look like the a jackass. No one here but your yourself claims to be an expert on anything.

I tried to do you a favor and warn you about you attitude but you choose to ignore my friendly warnings. Now I am guessing you stay will be here less then 24 hours from now. You have pissed of the wrong person on this forum, the Minister of Whoopass and Chris. See Les is the local Great White Shark here, he takes care of morons that come to this site. Chris is also the law here and it seems you have ticked him off also. I am guess this will be my last post to you so, Good bye.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You see what I wish to see is how is a Sherman or any other allied tank superior to the Tiger, King Tiger, or Panther. That is all I want to see.

 

[Hunter368]

You see what I wish to see is how is a Sherman or any other allied tank superior to the Tiger, King Tiger, or Panther. That is all I want to see.

I know Chris thats all you, and I keep asking him. But he cannot or will not post anything about that. B/c he knows the Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 are better. You and I don't care if they are better but we at least acknowledge they are better. We call it as we see it, good is good and bad is bad, we don't care if it German or USA or British or anything else. But he is so clearly baised in favor of Allied tanks its not even funny.

Add into the mix he is rude, abrasive, arrogant and thinks he knows waaaaay more than he actually does. Thats a bad mix. Chris you know I don't get into many (almost none) arguements but this guy is too much to just sit here. He calls us all Uberpanzer fans and I take that as a insult to me and to this forum and the people on this forum.

 

[Gnomey]

Please be so good as to indicate which source you doubt. Then I can dispell your cofusion.

I would like to see you state one source which so far you have failed to do.

You see what I wish to see is how is a Sherman or any other allied tank superior to the Tiger, King Tiger, or Panther. That is all I want to see.

Yep, that is what I am waiting to see as well.

 

[ndicki]

Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.

Exactly

 

[Hunter368]

Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.

Thank you!! I have said that exact thing to him over and over. I think he chooses to ignore those comments b/c he has no facts. Big opinions with no proof and a huge ass sitting on his shoulders....yup thats kenny.

He posts random pictures of tanks, posts random numbers and calls that facts!! They are not facts they are just what they appear to be....ramblings of a fool. He has not posted one piece of relevant information yet.

 

[Soren]

M_kenny you know perfectly well what claims I want sources for, now provide them and stop dodging the issue.


Isn't it funny guys, M_kenny has been posting allot of figures yet he hasn't even once named the source of his figures - bet its all in his imagination.

 

[m kenny]

Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.

Well let me see.
I get a message from Soren telling me to read a book by Jentz.
He does not specify what title.
I show him the Jentz titles I have to hand.
I ask him to tell me which one of the titles I should read.
Got it now?

but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks

If you took the time to look closely you would notice at least 8 are specific to the Tiger tank.
Jentz himself is considered one of, if not the, world expert on the mechanical aspects of the tank.
You would be hard put to do any work on the Tiger without reference to Jentz or his works.

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

 

[Hunter368]

The point that everyone is making to you that you seem to not understand is that by showing pictures of burn out Shermans or Tigers proves NOTHING!!


Is there an echo in here? How many times do we have to tell you that. Hello?????? Anyone home???

 

[m kenny]

M_kenny you know perfectly well what claims I want sources for, now provide them and stop dodging the issue.


Isn't it funny guys, M_kenny has been posting allot of figures yet he hasn't even once named the source of his figures - bet its all in his imagination.

In your dreams maybe.

First source.

Reports on the status of sPzAbt 503 in Normandy:

Kept at Bundesarchiv-Militararchiv (BA-MA) Freiburg Germany

Monthly reports about sPzAbt 503 are kept in file BA-MA RH 10/220

Daily tank strengths are to be seen in:

BA-MA RH 21-5/50
BA-MA RH 10/220

and at NARA Washington DC USA.

T313 R420 F871388
T78 R313 F6265849
T313 R420 F8714036
T313 R420 F8714042
T313 R420 F8714118

This is the original wartime documentation where you can find the data for June-August 1944.

There were several hundred German Units in this campaign. Do you want all the Archive references typed out?
It may help if you got Zetterlings book 'Normandy 1944' where all the reference numbers are given for information used in the compilation of Zetterling's book.

For SS Units I can only recomend the book 'Waffen SS Panzer Units In Normandy 1944'
This book by M Wood and J. Dugdale is useful because it shows the original German documents alongside clear typed copies of the information. Sample at the bottom of this post.
What you do is compare the originals and subtract those tanks that no longer appear as on strength as losses.
Note that on the sheet that shows TAC symbols that the strengths are written underneath the signs.
Do I have to post the whole of every source I have ?

 

[m kenny]

This is another example of the type of information used to compile the data I gave. This is not for the summer of 1944 but it is to show the type and style of information included in German documentation:

According to Anlage zu Gen.Qu.Nr. I, Panzerlage und Sturmgeschutzlage, Truppenmeldung Stand: 30.12.1944:

from left to right... operational/in repair/on route

AG Sud
Pz. II 6/6/0
Pz.III 20/15/2
Pz. IV 187/127/70
Pz. V 167/180/65
Pz. VI 21/16/45
StuG 185/125/120

AG A
Pz. II 3/0/0
Pz.III 22/6/0
Pz. IV 176/20/99
Pz. V 111/6/72
Pz. VI 52/1/0
StuG 522/76/99

AG Mitte
Pz. II 9/1/0
Pz.III 22/13/0
Pz. IV 165/53/94
Pz. V 150/65/0
Pz. VI 118/24/3
StuG 782/71/49

AG Nord
Pz. II 0/0/0
Pz.III 15/3/0
Pz. IV 22/18/0
Pz. V 17/30/0
Pz. VI 18/11/0
StuG 254/156/0

Norway and Denmark
Pz. II 0/0/0
Pz.III 85/13/0
Pz. IV 30/2/0
Pz. V 0/0/0
Pz. VI 0/0/0
StuG 49/3/0

AG Westen
Pz. II 4/1/0
Pz.III 29/5/3
Pz. IV 345/205/176
Pz. V 240/211/162
Pz. VI 58/58/7
StuG 335/341/413

AG Sud-westen
Pz. II 1/0/0
Pz.III 27/8/0
Pz. IV 137/23/17
Pz. V 20/12/0
Pz. VI 28/4/0
StuG 253/95/17

AG Sud-osten
Pzs all zeros
StuG 16/8/0

Tanks produced January to Febuary 1945:

Pz IV L43/48 330
Pz IV L70 390
Pz V 337
Pz VIa -
Pz VIb 82
StuG III/IV 664
StuH 95
StuPz 14
JagdPz 832
JagdPanther 114
JagdTiger 23

 

[m kenny]

Some British sources.

In the PRO, Ruskin Avenue, Kew, Richmond, Surrey the following OR Reports/papers can be consulted (sample of contents listed)


Cause of loss for German tanks is given for a select set in O.R.S. 2

No.2 OR Section, Report No.3

Investigation of an Attack on a German Column Near La Baleine

Report No.4

Air Attacks on Enemy Tanks and Motor Transport in the Mortain Area, August 1944

Report No 12 Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties 6 June to 10 July 1944

Report No 17 Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6 June to 31 August 1944. Data collected by 2 ORS and 20 WTSFF.

Report No 18 Tank Casualties during the exploitation phase after crossing the Seine

Report No 27 concerns anti tank in the Ardennes and examines US TD Bns, towed and SP.


For Western Europe 1944 ORO-T-117 the sample gives a total of 50.9% of US tanks lost to gunfire (1051 from 2065) and 59.2% of British losses to gunfire (621 from 1048). Canada lost 54.8% to gunfire (161 from 294).

The Canadian study of Sherman casualties (RGd 24:Report No 12)
about 3% of German 75 mm hits failing to penetrate but the 88 mm had a 100% penetration rate. a further 124 tanks were inspected that had 83 hits that failed to penetrate.
73% of AP hits brewed up on penetration


Overall cause of loss for tanks according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO

Abstract.

Mines 22.1%
AT guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP Guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%

I presume that I will have to post every word of every report to prove they are real?
This is a partial list of sources used to compile the figures I use. It is not complete because the references are extensive.

 

[Soren]

M_kenny how about you show us how many German tanks were actually taken out by Allied tanks ? - Yes, thats a very small percentage.


Some Tiger units had a kill ratio of over 16 to 1 ! : Tiger I Information Center - Loss Ratios

 

[m kenny]

M_kenny how about you show us how many German tanks were actually taken out by Allied tanks ? - Yes, thats a very small percentage.

and the data fused by you to reach this conclusion is...............?

it can be found at ...............................?

It is published in the book....................?

Some Tiger units had a kill ratio of over 16 to 1 ! : Tiger I Information Center - Loss Ratios

Oh a web site.
Please then list his sources.
Remember how you squelaed for mine...........

Another fat zero for soren.

 

[lesofprimus]

I am impressed that u posted such accurate refrences kenny... Good to know that u are thorough...

 

[m kenny]

An example of a really accurate web site.


Tiger I Information Center - Unit Histories

From the entry about sPzAbt 503.

"18 July 1944 3/503 is bombed during Operation Goodwood, but only two Tigers are lost, one burnt out and the other was flipped over by a near miss. 13 Tigers lost during the day to all causes"

Really? Then why are there photos of 4 wrecks? To pre-empt replies. These 4 Tigers are directly disabled by the bombing and not any of the '13 Tigers lost during the day to all causes'.
Perhaps it should be noted that the info on the site is a word for word copy of Schneiders 'Tigers In Combat 1'.
Schneider has a great admiration for the Tiger and attributes nearly every loss to non-combat action!
The total of 13 Tigers lost this day is probably an error as it should be nearer 10 than 13.
Oh and the last two photos are not the same tank.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes but none of your sources prove that the Tiger was inferior to the allied tanks which it was not.

The Tiger outgunned the allied tanks. The Tiger was better armoured than the allied tanks. I dont have to list references for this because you look at any source and it will prove this.

What killed Tigers was not that the allied tanks were better because they were not but rather the overwelming amount of allied tanks and allied air power.

Sorry m kenny if you actually think that a Tiger was inferior to an allied tank, you are dillusional.

All you have shown is that Tigers were killed. We know that. All of us do. So what is your fricken point?

 

[m kenny]

Yes but none of your sources prove that the Tiger was inferior to the allied tanks which it was not.

Who said it was? Hunter was desperately trying to get me to say something like that and I told him I do not get involved in 'which tank was best' arguments.

What killed Tigers was not that the allied tanks were better because they were not but rather the overwelming amount of allied tanks and allied air power
Sorry m kenny if you actually think that a Tiger was inferior to an allied tank, you are dillusional.

Again I ask who said that?

All you have shown is that Tigers were killed. We know that. All of us do. So what is your fricken point?

The point I was making is that the site given in the link was used to 'authenticate' high kill rates for the Tiger.
If I had dared to suggest it might not be correct then I would have been vilified again. I posted proof and thus head off this possibility.

The root of everything I post is simple. There were no 10:1 kill ratios for Tigers in Normandy.

There simply were not enough dead Allied tanks to even get up to 5:1 for the Panzer fleet.
True some ace's could and did get multiple kills in excess of this but I am only trying to put right the 5:1 AVERAGE exchange rate for the German tanks.
Truth is the Tiger was hardly noticed in Normandy. The Tiger II made its debut in France and there is not a single account that suggests they had any effect whatsoever. In all 45 TII's went into action up to September and were simply flattened by the advancing Allies with very little trouble.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ofcourse they did not make an impact because there were not eneogh of them. That is not even an arguement here. Yes we know that more German tanks were killed overall, that is not an arguement here.

I think we are all just shooting past each other hear talking on a completely different level. Each with there own agenda and frankly we are not getting any where.