- Thread starter
-
- #101
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.I have aquestion....to what extent were losses and kills innaccurately reported to satiate Hitler.
Forgive me but if you know that then why do you accept the kill claim lists that are inflated?.
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.
m kenny said:More exageration. He was certainly lacking in judgement-see his disaster at Cintheaux.
m kenny said:Silly argument. If you don't like the message shoot (or discredit) the messenger.
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.
m kenny said:He was just an ordinary soldier. His misfortune was to be hyped out of all reality.
m kenny said:attack by a single tank into the center of an enemy held town is a good idea?
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
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;
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.
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.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.
If you want people to ever believe you m_kenny then you need to be objective and leave your bias behind.
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 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.
There are lots of threads claiming Monty was incompetent, ect. I dont see you getting upset at his disparagement.Would you say the same thing about Monty or Eisenhower in N. Africa? Lets be honest now..
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.And knocking out 11 (or 5 for all I care) tanks is a small feat. How many have you knocked out?
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!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...
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.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.
There are lots of threads claiming Monty was incompetent, ect. I dont see you getting upset at his disparagement.
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.
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.
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.
And that claim that Soviet losses were c. 6000 tanks and SUs vs German losses of 235 tanks, were exactly you got the figures?
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 ?