Tank commanders, who was best?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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!
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
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
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.
If it was I believe we would have been informed of as much by now. I think we can safely rule that tome out!
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.
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.
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.
Agree once again. If it sounds too good to be true then it usualy is!
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..............
- Thread starter
- #126
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Gents, what do we know about Otto Carius and his Malinava....I have his book, but it's stored away!
- Thread starter
- #127
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
MIchael Witmann, Hugo Primozic from the german side and William Creighton Abrams from the allies side.
parsifal
Colonel
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.....
I have read the book, but it was not my copy.....
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.
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
Colonel
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
- Thread starter
- #132
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
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?
Is it possible you could give us a source for these figures?
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
Is it difficult to believe now?
parsifal
Colonel
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???
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???
Yes. They are total losses.
23500 for 1943.
5747 Jan-June 1943.
17753 July-Dec 1943.
Do not be confused by those who try and wish away this 50% reduction. It was applied to every EF claim 1943-45.
At least they give references for their totals............something we should all do!
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
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
Agreed. People choose which sources and they only believe certain ones. It certainly makes for good convos most of the time.
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.
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
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
Yes I know, and I agree. That is the same point that I have been trying to make.
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?
