Tank commanders, who was best? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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?
 
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
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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?
 
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,
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
Btw, my vote goes for Otto Carious.
 
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?

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Roger, you live in Germany so you must know :)
 
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.



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........................


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.

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.

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!
 
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.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.
 
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.

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.

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? :lol:
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 ?
 
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
 
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

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.

verlusteb.gif


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!
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back