Tank commanders, who was best?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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

 

[Soren]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.