|
Author
|
Topic: Tank Reporting Practise ger and sov
|
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 09:23 AM
  
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
After action reports and photographs show that more than 15 were knocked out.
What after action reports?
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 09:27 AM
quote:
Now it is probable some of these disabled tanks were recovered but I doubt if all were repaired[/B]
Neither do I believe that all were repaired. Some fully repairable vehicles may have been captured when allied ground units advanced and workshops had to be evacuated. Ritgen speak of such an incident with Pz.Lehr at Cobra. However, many were, as I discuss below.[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-28-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 09:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
The problem I have is the continued use of the TOTAL number of Tigers in a Unit to give the impression an Abteilung had say 35 Tigers when in fact only 20 were in use.
I have not found this to be a particularly common problem.
A greater problem is that you still have not presented a shread of evidence that the recovered tanks were not repaired to an appreciable extent.
Between 1 October 1943 and 31 January 1944 the Germans repaired 9,155 tanks and assault guns, while 2,945 were permanently lost. Thus, for each lost, more than three were repaired. How many that were repaired in Normandy is not known, but on 14 July Dietrich reported that his corps alone had repiared 137 Panthers and Tigers since D-Day. Compare this to the fact that the units employed with the corps up to that date only had 213 Tigers and Panthers (if vehicles in workshops are included + replacements) This hardly suggests that damaged tanks were piling up at the workshops.
[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-28-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 09:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
In fact most [Tigers] never did get fixed.
As I wrote in a previous post, on 6 July the 101. SS was down to zero operational. Two days later it had 20 operational. On 17 July it had only one operational, twelve days later it had 21 operational.
On 13 July the 102. SS had 10 operational, seventeen days later it had 30 operational.
On the evening of 18 July the 503. had nine operational, a week later it had 20.
Similar examples could be made for many panzer units. There are no replacements sent that can explain this, only vehicles coming out of workshops.
[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-28-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 12:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
The problem is the German practise of recovering every possible wreck and trying to fix it.
I just looked into the war diary of the 654. Pz.Jäg.Abt. with its JagdPanthers. The battalions losses until it mase its way out of France are very well recorded and I can not find a single case of a JagdPanther being damaged, recovered and subsequently written off. On the other hand several were damaged (mainly mechanical problems), but lost because they could NOT be recovered. For this battalion it seems that the problem was just the opposite of what you claim. Maybe the Tiger battalions had different experiences, but if so I certainly would like to know why.
[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-28-2002).]
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 03:16 PM
I am only talking about Tiger tanks and their losses in Normandy. Nothing I say has anything to do with any other Units or tanks. I have spent a lot of time and effort tracking down photos of destroyed Tigers as well as reading books written by the men who were there. This could get very complicated and as it involves single Tigers the effect these figures would have on the overall tank strength in Normandy is negligible. With that in mind I give one example for SS 101. On June 16 they report a total strength of 36 Tigers. On July 1st they have 30, a drop of 6. TIC2 lists losses as 2 on 24/6, 1 on 27/6 3 on 28/6. 4 of these losses on 27/28th of June. Yet it is known that 5 101 Tigers were destroyed and unrecovered for the period from 27th to 30th. Known because we have dateable photos for 4 of them. The fifth unphotographed Tiger(no.324) is mentioned in the War Diary of 11th Armoured Division. Mentioned along with Tiger 231 which we do have a photo of. Now that would make 7 destroyed Tigers in this period not 6. As 101 were the only Tiger Unit in Normandy at this time they must be 101 Tigers. Only one out yes but still something is not quite right. Really all we are talking about is if the paperwork is 100% correct and thus, as my friend Darrin keeps telling me, every other source that contradicts these figures MUST be wrong. My version is that these figures are wrong in places, wrong for any number of innocent reasons but still wrong. I did not come to this conclusion lightly and I am still looking. It may be that later evidence will show otherwise but for now, though I have to speculate as to why I think they are slightly out, I still contend the figures are not absolutely and unquestionably the only correct figures for Tiger losses in Normandy. Does anyone want to argue that the paerwork is the only true record?
IP: Logged |
Rich
Moderator
|
posted 12-28-2002 06:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
The whole 503. sPz.Abt. riddle hinges on the H.Gr. B report showing a total of 23 Tigers lost up to 27 July. It is worth noting that when we talk of such small figures, a simple printing error may cause great effects. Assume the clerk who wrote the report simply hit the "2" key instead of the "3" key.
Curiously enough Niklas, if you check NARA T78, R145, F5886~ (file copies at H.Qu.OKH. of the loss reports for June-August 1944 as of 1 October as reported by the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen) you will find that OB-West actually recorded the loss of 17 Pz.Kpf.Wg.VI L56 in June and 13 in July, with an additional 2 Pz.Bef.Wg.VI L56 lost in June and 1 in July. Probably coincidentally, that totals 33.  Considering that there were no other Tigers to be lost in the West in that period and that the report was prepared one month after the end of the priod, then I would have to believe this report was more accurate than the original HG-B report. The report is also consistent with that filed on 1 August, which reported April-June (the report series overlaps). And the same may be found in the later reports as well. In other words, the earlier reports are not corrected in the later reports, so it can probably be taken as given that the monthly figures are fairly firm. So do the extra ten Tigers lost solve the s.Pz.Abt. 503 mystery?
IP: Logged |
Rich
Moderator
|
posted 12-28-2002 07:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
With that in mind I give one example for SS 101. On June 16 they report a total strength of 36 Tigers. On July 1st they have 30, a drop of 6. TIC2 lists losses as 2 on 24/6, 1 on 27/6 3 on 28/6. 4 of these losses on 27/28th of June. Yet it is known that 5 101 Tigers were destroyed and unrecovered for the period from 27th to 30th. Known because we have dateable photos for 4 of them. The fifth unphotographed Tiger(no.324) is mentioned in the War Diary of 11th Armoured Division. Mentioned along with Tiger 231 which we do have a photo of. Now that would make 7 destroyed Tigers in this period not 6.
Sorry Michael, but I think you may be a little too fixated on the matter of dates. I have found in an extensive review of the Panzerlage for AOK 10 and AOK 14 in Italy, that many of the daily totals as found in unit monthly Meldungen may actually date from daily reports made to army up to three days prior to the report date on the Meldung itself. In other words, the date in a report is the record date, not neccessarily the date on which that strength and loss data were valid, unless a specific reporting date and time is given. So it is quite conceivable that 5 losses were incurred as you say in the period from 27 to 30 June, but that the loss of the fifth wasn't recorded until 1, 2, 3, or even 4 July. We do know that 101 recorded 30 onhand on 6 July, a decrease of 15, and recorded losing 15 by 5 July, so where is the problem? Some further musings - hopefully of interest and not straying too far from the subject. In Italy it was customary to file operational status in the daily Morgenmeldung and a complete Ist report, including onhand, operational, short and long-term repair, every three to four days. I would assume, given the systematic nature of the German General Staff, that similar practices were in place in OB-West. Furthermore, the two reports had slightly different purposes, the daily report was intended for the army commander and his Ia, for planning purposes, whereas the second was mostly the concern of the Qu., for losgistical purposes. However, part of the problem with SS 101 is that in Normandy the reports that are extant are mostly the daily operational records. The more extensive Ist reports are mostly missing, as are most of the loss reports except for the cummulative totals. This the ongoing arguments over strengths and losses, but on the other hand, if they weren't fragmentary what would we have to ramble on about?
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 07:28 PM
Which basicaly is what I am saying. I know that the reports we have are not accurate. I am not trying to say the aren't of any use or that they are totally wrong. It just become obvious to me as I counted the wrecks. I do not claim any great insight into the paperwork of the time and really I dropped into this thread because of an ongoing disagreement with Darrin over this issue. He says they cant be wrong and anyone who says otherwise(i.e. me!) is a foolish man.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 09:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rich:
Curiously enough Niklas, if you check NARA T78, R145, F5886~ (file copies at H.Qu.OKH. of the loss reports for June-August 1944 as of 1 October as reported by the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen) you will find that OB-West actually recorded the loss of 17 Pz.Kpf.Wg.VI L56 in June and 13 in July, with an additional 2 Pz.Bef.Wg.VI L56 lost in June and 1 in July. Probably coincidentally, that totals 33. Considering that there were no other Tigers to be lost in the West in that period and that the report was prepared one month after the end of the priod, then I would have to believe this report was more accurate than the original HG-B report. The report is also consistent with that filed on 1 August, which reported April-June (the report series overlaps). And the same may be found in the later reports as well. In other words, the earlier reports are not corrected in the later reports, so it can probably be taken as given that the monthly figures are fairly firm. So do the extra ten Tigers lost solve the s.Pz.Abt. 503 mystery?
One possibbility for why these two different reports use two different numbers could be they are talking about differnt situations. This later report includes tanks lost all through the month of july and all through OBW. The first report only includes up to the 27th of july and is at least 4 days short. The first report also includes only the northen army group in france. The reports are not indentical neither should thier numbers be. One tiger repair depot overrun during the last days of july could easily account for this difference.
An interesting report that seems more plausible in its numbers. It doesn't actually mean thier was a mistake in the first report though.
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-28-2002 10:05 PM
There were no other Tigers in France other than those in Normandy so nothing can confuse (further) this calculation. Darrin it seems you still will not accept that these reports might be incorrect......!
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 01:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
I still contend the figures are not absolutely and unquestionably the only correct figures for Tiger losses in Normandy.
Well if this is the only thing you wanted to say, I think the road to that conclusion was extremely convoluted. Especially as it included statements on the "Tiger myth", claims that most (assuming this means at least 50 %) of the damaged German Tigers in Normandy were never repaired, claims that the "Germans recovered every possible wreck", etc.Has anyone ever believed that there is a single major type of source that is always and in every aspect correct? Obviously books written after the war (regardless of who the writer is) are not free of errors either. I don't know what sources Schneider has used, but it would be a major surprise if he has not used any wartime German "paperwork". If this is true, then how can his book be used to prove that the paperwork is inaccurate. There also exists many photos that are given incorrect dates and locations (see J-P Palluds book on the Battle of the Bulge).
Also, the 11th Armoured Division war diary is a source that has to be used with care. The general rule is that war diaries, or after action reports, should not be used to establish the opposing sides losses. Even if a number is given, it may well be an incorrect type of tank. This problem was also indicated in a British ORS report written during June 1944.
As a general rule of thumb, I would much rather stick to archival records than publications after the war or photos.
If the question was about a +/- 1 loss figure I would not bother with nailing it down in a case like this. I would just say the the available sources give two figures and giving the sources in the notes. To believe that tank losses can be established with 100% accuracy is unrealistic. OK, in som ecases it can, but for WWII these are exceptions rather than norm. If we can achieve a 99 %, or even 95 % accuracy, we will in most cases be quite happy, regardless of whether we speak of German, British, Soviet or any other nations tank losses.
[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-29-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 01:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
I am only talking about Tiger tanks and their losses in Normandy. Nothing I say has anything to do with any other Units or tanks.
I disagree, since you have been speaking of the German practise of recovering every possible type of wreck.
Also, why would only Tigers be recovered and not repaired. Given the weight of the Tigers, they were more difficult to recover than most other German AFV.
I am sorry, but your previous statements can not logically be connected to only Tigers.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 02:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rich:
Curiously enough Niklas, if you check NARA T78, R145, F5886~ (file copies at H.Qu.OKH. of the loss reports for June-August 1944 as of 1 October as reported by the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen) you will find that OB-West actually recorded the loss of 17 Pz.Kpf.Wg.VI L56 in June and 13 in July, with an additional 2 Pz.Bef.Wg.VI L56 lost in June and 1 in July. Probably coincidentally, that totals 33.
This is precisely one of the rerasons I began to believe that the report on 23 Tigers lost up to 27 July was wrong. I did not dig deep into it, but I could not recall any actions that would have motivated the loss of ten Tigers in those four days.
The other major piece of information was the shipment of 14 Tiger II to the company of 503. Pz.Abt. that was sent to Mailly. Normally a unit would not receive new tanks until it had a shortage at least as large as the shipment. I don't think it is likely that the discrepancy could be explained by Tigers being sent to Germany for repairs.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 08:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
This is precisely one of the rerasons I began to believe that the report on 23 Tigers lost up to 27 July was wrong. I did not dig deep into it, but I could not recall any actions that would have motivated the loss of ten Tigers in those four days.
The other major piece of information was the shipment of 14 Tiger II to the company of 503. Pz.Abt. that was sent to Mailly. Normally a unit would not receive new tanks until it had a shortage at least as large as the shipment. I don't think it is likely that the discrepancy could be explained by Tigers being sent to Germany for repairs.
I agree more and more with rich and nicklas too the 503rd was missing as much as a coy on the 20th and on the 27th when the report came out indicating no more than 4 losses. On This very day shipments of new tiger II replacments left the factory in germany. This all points to large losses of tigers from the 503rd by this time. In fact I was already proposing this but because I did not not know if thier was an unusuall error in this single unconfimed report I was begining to wonder if the tanks were sent back to the factory for repair. And therefore not listed as des but removed from the units str. Why would such an unusual concentration of tanks be removed for factory repair from the 503rd might have something to do with one of the few units hit by stratbombing. Something that was generally directed just behind the front lines perhaps allowing the tanks to be reovered more than for exaple the 101 during its loss of 15 in june mainly in the front lines.
Its also interesting to note that the CW examined 40 des tiges in france concluded only one had been des due to aircraft weapons. The losss of many of the tigers in one coy due to aircraft attack seems a bit hard to swallow. But it wasn't just aircraft the 503rd faced at this time op goodwood went on until at least the 20th of july. If the intial report contained errors it was caught and corrected. This all points to the reports being accurate. And when mistakes are noiced they are corrected. This all points to the ger archival reords or any other nation as being the best source of information about thier army except under rare and exceptional conditons. Such as france aug 44 for germany and most of 1941 for russia. I hope most people here would agree with this.
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 12-29-2002 08:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Which basicaly is what I am saying. I know that the reports we have are not accurate....He says they cant be wrong and anyone who says otherwise(i.e. me!) is a foolish man.
Well, if the reports are inaccurate, it is usually in one of the following ways: 1. Delayed reporting...often up to three days.
2. Incomplete reports.
3. Missing reports.
4. Human error. Rarely do you see anything that is just "dead wrong" (unless one looks at the intel files). There is also a fifth source of error, which is misinterpretation of the reports by historians. This seems to be more common than most people think.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 09:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Darrin:
Its also interesting to note that the CW examined 40 des tiges in france concluded only one had been des due to aircraft weapons. The losss of many of the tigers in one coy due to aircraft attack seems a bit hard to swallow. But it wasn't just aircraft the 503rd faced at this time op goodwood went on until at least the 20th of july.
Well, yes, but that is still less than half the number actually lost. Also, I have a PRO report (AIR 37/1263) which examines the effect of the bombing of a German tank formation in an orchard on 18 July. In this area four Tigers were found (the investigation was made on the ground after the British had captured the area). One Tiger was destroyed, but the rest of the vehicles could effectively not move out of the area, due to the cratering. This cause a problem of classification. Were the tanks to be regarded as lost due to the bombardment, or due to the advancing ground forces. Obviously both factors were required. Had the ground forces not advanced, the Germans would have had sufficent time to recover the tanks. On the other hand, hand it not been for the air bombing, the tanks could have been driven away before the British ground forces closed in.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 09:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
Well, yes, but that is still less than half the number actually lost. Also, I have a PRO report (AIR 37/1263) which examines the effect of the bombing of a German tank formation in an orchard on 18 July. In this area four Tigers were found (the investigation was made on the ground after the British had captured the area). One Tiger was destroyed, but the rest of the vehicles could effectively not move out of the area, due to the cratering. This cause a problem of classification. Were the tanks to be regarded as lost due to the bombardment, or due to the advancing ground forces. Obviously both factors were required. Had the ground forces not advanced, the Germans would have had sufficent time to recover the tanks. On the other hand, hand it not been for the air bombing, the tanks could have been driven away before the British ground forces closed in.
Yes and a tiger rolled on its side would be imobile and very vulnerable in its weak top and underbody. Esp since the crew probably left already. Even a stuart could destroy such a tank.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 11:59 AM
[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-29-2002).]
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 01:08 PM
The report on the orchard bombing on the 18th July can only be the 503 Tigers lost on the 18th. Darrin both 101 AND 503 lost Tigers directly because of allied bombing. We even have photos of 2 Tigers totaly destroyed by hits by bombs. I would point out I seem to be the only one who is tackling this from the actual known loss side and not from a 'record' angle. I assure everyone I am well aware of mistaken Tiger claims, double reporting and simple errors. The 11th AD report deserves to be taken seriously because it gives the numbers of the Tigers mentioned, 231 and 324. An 'unidentified' widely published photo of a Tiger wreck has since been positively identified, using previous known photos of 231, as 231. Modestly I would also point out it was me who first noticed the claim of only 4 Tigers destroyed in the period 15th to 27th July could not be correct. I am not on any crusade to rubbish German reports or anything else just someone looking into the actions of the 3 Tiger Abteilung in Normandy. Schneiders books are not acurrate on reported losses nor is any other book I have read, personaly I think his claim of 13 Tigers lost on the 18th a bit on the high side. I am simply trying to reconstruct these losses and have found a few previosly unknown pictures and helped correctly ID some miscaptioned ones. All my photos are positively identified as to date or location and I do not use unverified information to make a positive claim. So all this comes down to is that I think the actual number of Tigers written off does not match the numbers/dates given in some of the reports. If this is because of a delay or lag in the reporting system it really does not matter. Yes I am working on the level of individual Tigers so again my results will not change the overall situation and despite what anyone says I am only talking about the Tiger Abteilung. Would anyone care to discuss actual losses with me?.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 02:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
I would point out I seem to be the only one who is tackling this from the actual known loss side and not from a 'record' angle.
I would say individual loss side, not known loss side. Even if your work would be foolproof, it will only be of limited value in establishing tank losses. I hardly think every tank lost was actually recorded (as to time, place and chassis number) and photographed and all this information has survived in a condition that is sufficiently unambigous. It is good that you have chosen to look at Tigers, as they were both few and so special that people were more likely to take shots of them. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
The 11th AD report deserves to be taken seriously because it gives the numbers of the Tigers mentioned, 231 and 324.
This is not a guarantee that it is correct. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
I am simply trying to reconstruct these losses and have found a few previosly unknown pictures and helped correctly ID some miscaptioned ones. All my photos are positively identified as to date or location and I do not use unverified information to make a positive claim.
Well, this illustrates the problem I have had with your posts. You rely on authority, rather than argument. Very little evidence have presented by you. Rather you simply claim that you do very good work and have the evidence. This is more of a reliance on credibility than anything else. Since you have made a number of statements on the German repair system that are unsupported and also seem unlikely to be true, credibilty suffers. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Would anyone care to discuss actual losses with me?.
I have nothing against that. However, as your sources are so closed to us it is difficult to conduct a meaningful discussion. Also, the many unsupported statements have made it unclear what your position actually is.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 02:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Schneiders books are not acurrate on reported
Yet, info provided in his book was indespensable to your claim that the 101 SS Pz.Abt. losses were low by one.
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 03:33 PM
Well my 'unsupported' claims directly challenged a known and referenced source for the losses 15/7 to 27/7 1944. Would anyone now claim only 4 Tigers lost in this period?. Nothing is foolproof but as the number of Tigers here was relatively small it is possible to get good information on wrecked Tigers-if you know where to look. I do not pretend to know how the repair system worked but from looking at the figures I noticed a lot of Tigers 'disappeared' from the system that were not logged as losses. Various reasons are advanced for this but apart from claims that the missing Tigers might have been returned for factory repair no one can say what became of them. Would not anything shipped for such factory repair be reported as a total loss anyway? Rather than simply accepting this shrinkage and moving on I took the trouble to try and find out where they went. Work is still ongoing but is far from finished and I have a long way to go. My 'references'?. 30 years spent trawling through nearly every Military and Modelling magazine published. Reading nearly every British War Diary and book published by a Veteran. Speding vast amounts of money on every published Tiger book in the hope (sometimes realised) of finding a new photograph. Collecting all known Tiger photographs and checking the cammo-pattern and damage of individual Tigers against photos of known identified Tigers. Checking through many a Museum/commercial photo library in the hope again of finding new pics (again sometimes succesfully). Contact with British Veterans who faced the Tigers and this again unearthed some previously unkown Tiger photos. Do I have a referenced Archive number from Koblenz to back my claims, no but do I need one before I am taken seriously? I would contend some of the Tigers that dropped out of the system and simply disappeared could be battle casualties. I fail to see why this is not possible.
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 03:58 PM
Schneider uses exactly these daily reports to reconstruct the losses he gives for 101. They say 15 were lost, he says 15 were lost. Schneider uses Werner Wendt as his main source of information for 101 and Wendt was again the (disputed) source of most of Agte's book on Wittmann/SS 101. As I was saying these figures are not completely accurate I would have been foolish to use him to give my 'new' numbers. Rather I gave these figures PLUS 1. Remember I dont say they are completely wrong but only pointed out where there could be more than the claimed number. I took the trouble to contact the owners of some of the photos usEd by Schneider in his Tiger books and it seems he was given a number of unidentified Tiger wreck photos that he then used as identified losses without any verification. Some of the Tiger photos claimed to be SS 101 Tigers in his book are plainly other Units Tigers. I have been in contact with a few Authors in my time and can again say that whilst this contact gained me a lot of new information this was a two-way trade.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 04:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Well my 'unsupported' claims directly challenged a known and referenced source for the losses 15/7 to 27/7 1944.
I have not argued here that 4 Tigers were lost during that period. You are not alone in finding this figure suspect. The records from the Gen.Insp.d.Pz.Tr. (showing 33 Tigers lost during June and July) mentioned by Rich was what made me suspicious about the 23 lost up to 27 July report. Had I not seen this, I would not have placed much belief in your e-mail sent to me a couple of months ago. The problem I have with your postings on this site is not this issue, but your inferrences and your explanations. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
I do not pretend to know how the repair system worked
Yet, you stated that the Germans had certain practises when it came to recovery. You also stated that most of the Tigers in repair were never repaired. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Various reasons are advanced for this but apart from claims that the missing Tigers might have been returned for factory repair no one can say what became of them.
What Tigers are missing? As yet we have only spoken of those "missing" in the report for 27 July (plus one possible for 101 SS). Now as we have seen above there were more Tigers recorded as losses in another report. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Would not anything shipped for such factory repair be reported as a total loss anyway?
No. If I remember correctly, I have even seen cases of tanks returned to factory even without being hit by anything. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
My 'references'?
I did not ask for your references, but arguments. I can not discern any discussion here. I only get the impression you want us to accept what you say. That's not what I call a discussion.
IP: Logged |
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
