|
Author
|
Topic: Tank Reporting Practise ger and sov
|
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 04:33 PM
  
Niklas I think more than anything the reports on lost Tigers in July shows how our approach is so different. I had the reported and photographed wrecked Tigers and I KNEW the reports were wrong. I did not need any Inspector Generals Report to tell me that and even if no one had ever found this report I still knew the figure first given was wrong. The same information leads me to suspect that other reported losses are wrong. Now as I am collating all this info myself what 'reference' can I give you that might make you take it seriously. Later on I will post a detailed account about one Tiger wreck that might be of some help to you.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 08:02 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. 
It is very interesting to note that not a single Tiger II was killed in JUNE or JULY ALL were Tiger Is. Even though there were at least 12 present with the 503 from early july.
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 09:05 PM
This is getting tedious. Despite what any of the paperwork says Tiger II's (L/71) WERE lost in July. In one very famous well documented, referenced and photographed action Tiger II (turret no.122 from '503') was rammed by a Sherman and some of the crew taken prisoner. Although we have some divergence on who actualy knocked out this Tiger the date is not in contention. There is also a problem with the report that 2 Pz.Bef.Wg.VI L56 were lost in June because only 101 was at the front in June. If they lost 2 that early then the reports for 8/8/44 detailing the events on the day of Wittmann's death are wrong in that it is clearly stated 2 Command Tigers were present. If they had lost 2 in June only 1 would have been left in August. More headaches!
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 09:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Niklas I think more than anything the reports on lost Tigers in July shows how our approach is so different. I had the reported and photographed wrecked Tigers and I KNEW the reports were wrong. I did not need any Inspector Generals Report to tell me that and even if no one had ever found this report I still knew the figure first given was wrong. The same information leads me to suspect that other reported losses are wrong. Now as I am collating all this info myself what 'reference' can I give you that might make you take it seriously. Later on I will post a detailed account about one Tiger wreck that might be of some help to you.
Micheal Thier is abosolutly no evidenece to suggest that all ger tiger reports were wrong. They made one report in error and now you think all are wrong. Even though the gers themselves caught this error and corrected it. Seems like a huge illogical leap of faith. Ger reporting WAS functioning well at this time. If you think just because they were not operational that for some reason they were missing and destryed then go read your books. They certanly weren't sittinging in the repair depots as Nicklas own numbers point out. Tigers were getting repaired moving in and OUT of the repair str on a very regular basis your first theory disproven without any proof even attempted by you. YOur newest and latest craze is they must have been sent back to the factory but at a rate of 15% from a one time report then we could expect 33 des tanks and maybe 8 tanks sent back to the factory for repair. Or 41 tanks by the end of july. No where near the total des you suggest but do nothing to prove. Plus tanks sent back to the factory for repair are not destroyed. The rus and USA both had a similar system for highly damaged tanks they weren't counted as des by the germans or anyone else. No attempted proof of your theory again. Not to mention tanks sent back to the factory for repair could NEVER NEVER have been near the front to have thier picture tanken or turent numbers recorded. So your 130+ des tigers verfied by you is HIGLY IMPROBABLE. The number des plus returned to fac would be close to 150+ even though ONLY 138 tigers may have present. Now your claim goes from almost 100% highly questionable to OVER a 100% get a room at the funny barn. At least some of those would be sent to ger for repair and could NOT have been recorded by anyone in the allied forces. Your theories proves itself wrong time and time agian. But not from your work but by other people work who you refuse to believe. A few photos a couple of turrent numbers from an allied AAR report do not even prove these tigers actually died. Nor do foggy allied vetern memories. Remeber the US in the begining was claiming tiger kills when there was not a single tiger in thier front. Plus the allies higly overclaimed thier tank and tiger numbers des much more so then the ger did. The allied reports are known to be suspect... I suspect your pictures also contain trophy pictures with multoiple copies of tigers. I went to europe and bagged myself a tiger... So many fronts units and years of pictures... Thier are to many known errors and problems with your HARD evidence to make its story beliavable over the ger paper reports. Somehow we have to trust you for ALL 130+ tigers des. The verification is proably as porrly down as all your claims. You talk about a few tanks and then somehow expect us to believe evrything else you say is true. Unfortunatly even 10 iron clad des tigers does not prove 130+ were destroyed. The big probem with us is you are the only bearrer of evidence. Publish all of it in a book or article and you might actually have a case. Although with your wildily unproven and unprovable claims I really doubt it. This is my third replay to you. In my first one I asked several questions none of which you answered in the mutitude of words you added. In the second reply I asked the main question again and again you ignore it. So yet again a third and last time one question PLESE answer it. WHY WOULD A GER COMMANDER NOT REPORT TANKS AS DES THAT WERE IN FACT TRULLY DES? iF THIER IS NO REASON THEN YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 12-29-2002 09:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
This is getting tedious. Despite what any of the paperwork says Tiger II's (L/71) WERE lost in July. In one very famous well documented, referenced and photographed action Tiger II (turret no.122 from '503') was rammed by a Sherman and some of the crew taken prisoner. Although we have some divergence on who actualy knocked out this Tiger the date is not in contention. There is also a problem with the report that 2 Pz.Bef.Wg.VI L56 were lost in June because only 101 was at the front in June. If they lost 2 that early then the reports for 8/8/44 detailing the events on the day of Wittmann's death are wrong in that it is clearly stated 2 Command Tigers were present. If they had lost 2 in June only 1 would have been left in August. More headaches!
Yet more evidence your 130+ claims are wrong. And ger archive str reports for thier tiger losses are correct. Thank You so much. It seems one incorrect report that the gers later correected is enough to tar all ger rport but when we point out a few of his obvious errors sudddenly he KNOWS everything... You can believe what ever you want just don't ask any of us to join your church. Your claims and proof certainly don't send us stampeding in your direction.
Everything I know is TRUE and does not need to be proven. Everything everybody else knows is FALSE regardless of proof. One too many short ciruits I think.
[This message has been edited by Darrin (edited 12-29-2002).] [This message has been edited by Darrin (edited 12-29-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-30-2002 12:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Darrin:
It is very interesting to note that not a single Tiger II was killed in JUNE or JULY ALL were Tiger Is. Even though there were at least 12 present with the 503 from early july.
No Darrin, you jump into conclusions. The report does not say that no Tiger II were lost in June and July. The report does not differentiate.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-30-2002 12:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
I KNEW the reports were wrong.
There are two things I find tedious about this discussion. The first is your claims that you KNOW things. The second is that you ignore many of the objections raised against your arguments. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
Now as I am collating all this info myself what 'reference' can I give you that might make you take it seriously.
A reference is something that will show how you have obtained your information and how it has been analysed. I doubt that you will find a discussion forum a convenient place to do that if it is as complicated as you said in a previous post. If you have spent 30 years on this issue, why don't you publish a book or article on it, so that someone else can check your statements, sources, methodology, logic etc. Or create an internet site showing it. That's cheap and easy these days.
I will not pursue discussing with someone who claims to KNOW things without making it possible to check the statements.
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-30-2002 02:31 AM
All I have to do to show the claim for only 4 Tigers lost for the period 15/27th July is wrong. Rather than a long list of reference numbers for the dated photos of these wrecked Tigers in the IWM and Canadian official photos, or the number of the cine-film also in the IWM you could use your PRO report on 4 Tigers still in situ where they were bombed. That gives us 4. Next we can add Tiger 122 which collided with the Sherman and later was destroyed by a Firefly. This incident has been widely pictured in Tiger books and as Gorman the Gaurds Officer who claimed this Tiger was decorated for it I dont think that wreck could be dismissed. That makes 5, one more than the report says. I could go further and list the 2 other 503 Tiger II's photographed wrecked or the veterans accounts of further Tigers destroyed. Schneider lists up to 13 but I cant confirm that many. SS 101 lost Tigers in this same time period and Schneider lists 3. As I have said in a previous post Schneider is not 100% acurrate but neither is he 100% wrong. Even if you ignore completely everything but the 5 known and proveable destroyed Tigers it is still more than the original report. Now you may say that is only ONE wrong report but just having recived info on this 'new' report of 33 lost Tigers I can see some problems with it (SS 101'S Command Tigers) but that can wait until later. My 'problem' with these charts is the fact that the total number of all Tigers available shrinks but the official losses do not grow by anything like the same number. You may say this could easily be explained by simple oversight by the clerks, transfers out of theatre (that I would find very difficult to believe given the situation in France) or errors in reporting. True but just as easily it could be explained by SOME unrecorded battle losses. My version is just as possible as any other and I cant understand the reluctance to admit this. Why do you seem to have a problem with me KNOWING the original report of 4 destroyed Tigers was wrong? Surely it is now obvious to nearly everyone that it was wrong. You may not like my confidence but it was based on solid checkable facts and supposing this 'new' report had never been mentioned here, would you still be claiming 4 was the correct total and I could have been wrong?. It might have been more diplomatic of me not to say this but it is still true that no matter how many reports anyone produced I WOULD STILL KNOW IT WAS MORE THAN 4 TIGERS. As the only poster here who seems to get his feet dirty in actual research on the ground rather than through an archive I seem to be outnumbered and assailed from all sides. I think ALL reasearch is valuable but if theory and practise are in conflict all the evidence should be thoroughly checked before a decision is reached. Am I looking for praise or kudos?, I could not care less. My research is for myself only I may at some time put this together and publish it but not until I confirm a lot more of what I suspect. By now you should all be aware of my views and you are all free to dismiss it as the ramblings of a lunatic. I hope you do take notice of what I say and maybe exercise a bit of caution when next you ruminate on this subject.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 12-30-2002 03:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
As I have said in a previous post Schneider is not 100% acurrate but neither is he 100% wrong.
Is any person 100% right? There may perhaps be some who are 100 % wrong, whatever that means. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
My 'problem' with these charts is the fact that the total number of all Tigers available shrinks but the official losses do not grow by anything like the same number.
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
You may say this could easily be explained by simple oversight by the clerks, transfers out of theatre (that I would find very difficult to believe given the situation in France) or errors in reporting.
As to the transfers out of the theatre, I know of no engaged unit being taken out from there before the end of the campaign. However, Tigers may have been sent to Germany for repairs. On 30 June the I. SS-Panzer Corps was ordered to create a collection area near Argentan for damaged tanks that were to be transported to Germany. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
True but just as easily it could be explained by SOME unrecorded battle losses. My version is just as possible as any other and I cant understand the reluctance to admit this.
I have never claimed that any category of sources is 100 % accurate. This obviously include archival documents too. I discussed this in chapter 1 of my Normandy book. I also wrote an article about it in Journal of Slavic Military Studies a couple of years ago. The problem I have is the many statements you have made, which I have commented upon but subsequently ignored by you. quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
My research is for myself only I may at some time put this together and publish it but not until I confirm a lot more of what I suspect.
I hope you do. It would be unfortunate if 30 years of effort passed virtually unnoticed. There is no great deal of money or fame in this business, but it is a reward in itself to write a book or an article and see it published. However, until you have done that, I don't see how there can be any point in continuing this discussion. I do wish you good luck with your research and any possible publication. Until your research is presented in such a way that other people can scrutinize it, you will probably find a few buffs like me who remain somewhat sceptical, but I do agree with you that all research is of value, the field does certainly not suffer from an excess of research.
[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 12-30-2002).]
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-30-2002 03:31 AM
If you check Jentz's 'Tiger I and II, Combat tactics' on page 117 you will find photos of a train with 3 wrecked Tigers loaded on it. This train was captured at Rheims in August. Jentz uses one or more of these photos in several of his books. Look in the old 1970's red cover Profile booklet on the Tiger and you will see a close up photo of one of these 'wrecked Tigers. Although burnt out and without markings I can tell by the camouflage style that these are '503' Tigers. They could not possibly be SS 101 or SS 102.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 12-30-2002 06:25 AM
Post Deleted by Forum Moderator Rich.Darrin, sorry, but your post did not really further this discussion. [This message has been edited by Rich (edited 12-30-2002).]
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-30-2002 03:50 PM
As I am often told photos are not a very reliable method to use as a reference I will give an example here to show just how valuable they can be if properly researched. There is a photo in the IWM of an unknown Tiger taken before the end of June 1944 that simply states that it is a Tiger with men from The Nottinghamshire Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry climbing on it. Nothing else known about it and various dates given. (see Restayn, 'Tigers on The Western Front' page 107. 'Panzers In Normandy Then And Now', page 181. Patrick Delaforce- 'Monty's Maurauders',page 157) Firstly, as it was June could only be SS 101. Next compare it to photos of known 101 Tigers, we get a match to a 1st kp. Tiger photographed on 7/6/44 near Morgny (exact same cammo pattern on the bow plate). Now compare it to other 'unknown' Tiger pics and we find the pattern of hits on the front of this Tiger matches exactly the hits on a Tiger from an IWM film clip taken near Rauray in June. This film puts the Tiger in a field beside a hedge with a Sherman parked beside it. Check War Diaries of British Units in action near Ruary and find Sherwoods in action there. Read accounts by Sherwood Veterans and discover Stuart Hills in his book 'By Tank Into Normandy' (and also in summary in various Delaforce books) using a diary he kept at the time, says on 25/6/44 whilst exiting Fontenay-Le-Pesnel The Sherwoods engaged and disabled a Tiger. Upon checking the Tiger they find that a hit on the drivers visor had started a small fire and the crew abandoned it in running order. Our mystery Tiger has just such a hit on the visor (and a few more!). Later whilst looking through a current magazine I saw a 'new' photo of a 101 Tiger credited to the REME Museum. I contacted the Museum and was able to obtain a series of photos of this Tiger being used for tests in the UK. Before I found these photos there was no record of any steel-wheel Tigers ever having been been shipped to the UK. The pattern of hits on this REME Tiger match the hits on our Sherwood Tiger, they are one and the same tank. In these new photos the turret numbers are partialy obscured but it is either 111 or 114. So now we have a Tiger (111 or 114) from 1st kp. sSS PzAbt. 101 disabled by The Nottinghampshire Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry just outside Fontenay-Le-Pesnel on 25th June 1944. This Tiger was subsequently shipped to the UK and used for firing trials before disappearing from the records. Now I do not have any matching paperwork from 101 to confirm this but does that make my evidence of date/identity any less worthy?.[This message has been edited by michael kenny (edited 12-30-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Rich
Moderator
|
posted 12-30-2002 10:22 PM
Michael, why have you been told that doing research from photos is bad/wrong or whatever? The major problem is getting accurate captions as to date, time, location and circumstances (often the photographers obviously had little grasp of what was going on, many captions have been corrupted from the original over the years and often secondary captions created years after the fact are taken as gospel). But that is no different from problems regarding meaning, provenance and interpretation of any other form of documentation. So I laud your efforts, but you should be less sensitive to criticism of your results, since as you have explained them so far they have been somewhat murky.BTW, my friend Ron Klages in Trail of the Tigers notes that Tiger 111 of SS-101 was lost to a British AT gun near Cahagnes on 16 June. No record for Tiger 114 though and nothing for 25 June. However, 2 with unrecorded numbers were lost as "abandoned, not repairable" again near Cahagnes on 24 June and 1 was lost to an American AT gun on 27 June near Granville. Finally, 3 were lost on 28 June near Granville again, but to British Shermans -probably your most likely candidates. But the problem remains in matching the date recollected by a veteran, to the dates of these incidents (which are probably also "fuzzy"), as well as getting the other circumstances to match.
IP: Logged |
Rich
Moderator
|
posted 12-30-2002 10:26 PM
More fruits from Ron Klages "Trail of the Tigers" with apologies in advance to him regarding any errors I have made.To summarize the strength and losses of Tiger I and II in the Normandy Campaign I think it would be best to first establish a few parameters. 1) The Normandy Campaign may be defined in many ways both temporarily (6 June-20 August, 6 June 24 July or 6 June to whatever) and geographically (Normandy, Northwest France, France west of the Seine, or whatever). In this case I am referring to the events occurring within the confines of OB-West during the calendar months of June, July and August 1944.
2) The Tiger tank units in question are Pz.Kp.316.(FKL), s.Pz.Abt.503., s.SS-Pz.Abt.101. and s.SS-Pz.Abt.102.
3) A loss is a write-off, usually due to major damage in combat that was not subject to repair. Pz.Kp.316 (FKL) was equipped with 3 Tiger I and 5 Tiger II (the first 5 produced - with Porsche turrets - chassis numbers 280001-280005) and was attached to Pz.-Lehr Regt.130 by 6 June 1944. The company deployed to France (first Verdun and then St. Denis) but experienced major problems with both the Tiger I and II, they were replaced by Sturmgeschuetz on 18 May. The 3 Tiger I did not see combat in Normandy, they were returned to Germany for rebuilding and reissue either shortly before or shortly after the company deployed to St. Denis. The 5 Tiger II remained at St. Denis and were later manned by scratch crews in August. All 5 were lost 13-18 August. Total score for the Normandy Campaign:
Tiger II 5 received, 5 lost (August) s.Pz.Abt.503 was equipped with 33 Tiger I (Stab, 2. and 3. Kp) and 12 Tiger II with Porsche turrets (1. Kp) by 6 June 1944. They received 14 more Tiger II, of which 12 were Porsche and 2 were Henschel turrets (6 in July and 8 in August) to refit 3. Kp. Between 7 July and 20 August they lost 30 Tiger I in combat (8 in July and 22 in August) and transferred out 3 for repair in Germany (which evidently were subsequently lost on the train captured by the Allies at Rheims). Six Tiger II (Porsche turret) were lost by 1. Kp in July and the remaining 6 (Porsche turret) were lost by 20 August. Finally, 3. Kp was re-equipped between 20 July and 11 August with 14 Tiger II. They lost 12 (10 Porsche and the 2 Henschel turrets) of the 14 by 24 August (the remaining 2 Porsche turrets were left at Mailly le Camp with mechanical problems and were then issued to 1./s.SS-Pz.Abt.101, but see below). Total score for the Normandy Campaign:
Tiger I 33 received, 33 lost
Tiger II 26 received, 24 lost July Losses 8 Tiger I and 6 Tiger II
August Losses 25 Tiger I and 18 Tiger II s.SS-Pz.Abt.101. was equipped with 45 Tiger I by 6 June 1944. They arrived in Normandy by 12 June, assembling near Villers-Bocage. They lost 16 in June, 4 in July and 25 in August (the last was abandoned near the Bois Bourdon). On 9 July the personnel of 1.Kp arrived in Paderborn and accepted 7 Tiger II. Seven more were issued before the company entrained for Paris on 5 August, arriving there on 20 August. They were then issued the two Porsche-turret Tiger II left behind by 3./s.Pz.Abt.503 (although sources conflict on this, another version being that these two were returned to Germany for repair and later were re-issued to s.Pz.Abt.503). It appears they lost 11 (including one of the Porsche-turrets) of these 16 by the end of August and certainly they lost their last operational one at La Capelle on 5 September. However, one (Porsche-turret?) was sent back to Germany for repair shortly before that. Total score for the Normandy Campaign:
Tiger I 45 received, 45 lost
Tiger II 16 received, 11 lost June Losses 16 Tiger I
July Losses 4 Tiger I
August Losses 25 Tiger I, 11 Tiger II s.SS-Pz.Abt.102 was equipped with 45 Tiger I by 6 June 1944. They arrived in the vicinity of Caen by 6 July, losing 7 Tiger I 10-31 July. A further 37 were lost in August, the last Tiger I was abandoned by the battalion in Genval Belgium on 1 September. Finally, it appears that 6 new Tiger I were issued to the battalion and that 6 were sent to Germany for rebuild on 23 August, but it is unclear whether or not these were actually the same vehicles (I believe they were, and that this was simply a paper transfer). Total score for the Normandy Campaign:
Tiger I 45 received, 44 lost July Losses 7 Tiger I
August Losses 37 Tiger I Total for all Tiger I and II in the Normandy Campaign:
Tiger I 123 received, 122 lost
Tiger II 47 received, 40 lost Total Losses:
June 16 Tiger I = 16
July 19 Tiger I, 6 Tiger II = 25
August 87 Tiger I, 34 Tiger II = 121 Losses by day - number/type/unit 13 June 3/Tiger I/101
15 June 5/Tiger I/101
16 June 1/Tiger I/101
24 June 2/Tiger I/101
27 June 1/Tiger I/101
28 June 3/Tiger I/101
30 June 1/Tiger I/101
4 July 1/Tiger I/101
6 July 1/Tiger I/503 (the Tiger that fell through the bridge)
10 July 5/Tiger I/102
11 July 1/Tiger I/102
18 July 7/Tiger I/503
18 July 6/Tiger II/503
18 July 1/Tiger I/101
19 July 1/Tiger I/101
20 July 1/Tiger I/101
26 July 1/Tiger I/102
2 August 1/Tiger I/102
3 August 3/Tiger I/102
4 August 1/Tiger I/102
5 August 1/Tiger I/102
8 August 8/Tiger I/101
11 August 2/Tiger I/503
11 August 2/Tiger II/503
12 August 2/Tiger I/503
12 August 1/Tiger II/503 (fell off a railcar during an air attack)
13 August 1/Tiger I/102
14 August 1/Tiger I/101
14 August 2/Tiger I/102
14 August 1/Tiger II/503
16 August 1/Tiger I/101
16 August 2/Tiger I/102
16 August 2/Tiger II/316
17 August 1/Tiger I/102
17 August 1/Tiger II/316
18 August 1/Tiger I/101
18 August 1/Tiger I/102
18 August 2/Tiger II/316
18 August 1/Tiger II/503
19 August 8/Tiger I/503
19 August 1/Tiger I/101
19 August 6/Tiger I/102
20 August 1/Tiger I/102
20 August 3/Tiger II/503
21 August 4/Tiger I/102
21 August 9/Tiger II/503
22 August 9/Tiger I/503
22 August 4/Tiger I/102
23 August 2/Tiger II/101
24 August 1/Tiger I/101
24 August 1/Tiger II/503
25 August 5/Tiger I/101
25 August 3/Tiger I/102
26 August 3/Tiger II/101
27 August 1/Tiger I/503
27 August 2/Tiger I/101
28 August 1/Tiger I/102
28 August 2/Tiger II/101
28 August 1/Tiger I/101
29 August 3/Tiger II/101
30 August 4/Tiger I/101
30 August 1/Tiger II/101
30 August 5/Tiger I/102
?? August 3/Tiger I/503 (damaged and being evacuated on the train captured at Rheims)
IP: Logged |
Rich
Moderator
|
posted 12-30-2002 10:43 PM
Now the OKH figures:As I said before, a total of 19 Tiger I (including Pz.Bef.Wg.) were recorded as lost in June and 14 in July. The real problem is August, when only 14 again were recorded as lost. Worse, there are no records of losses of the Tiger II for either July or August (partly I suspect because the form used did not include them - and yes I'm serious about that, I've seen odder things in records). However, the later reports filed gave September losses as 70 Tiger I, 23 Tiger II and 2 Pz.Bef.Wg. VI (which are almost certainly Tiger I, but yep, the old form again, it doesn't say, so you get to guess). It appears that actual losses for September were 5 Tiger I and 5 Tiger II, so the excess reported were obviously carry over from June-August (again the date problem). So it appears that the true "reported" losses were about 114 Tiger I and 18 Tiger II for June-August, not very far off from the "real" losses. The remaining "missing" losses were likely reconciled even later (if at all).
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-31-2002 12:37 AM
I intend getting a copy of Ron's book after the holidays but it is obvious from the extract you posted he has followd exactly the losses/dates given in Schneider for SS 101. One problem arises with the loss of Warbrumms Tiger on 27/6/44. This Tiger is supposed to have been knocked out by U.S. A/T Guns?. At various times this Tigers location is given as Rauray, Cheux and Grainville(sur-Odon) and on the given date these locations are well within the British area of operations, no US troops anywhere near. 111, said to have been lost on 16/6/44 is a more likely candidate for a US a/t gun hit because Cahagnes was in/near the US zone.(did you read wrongly?)I hate to nit pick but Schneider uses Daniel Taylors book on Villers Bocage as his source of information on this battle. I have been in touch with Taylor and after some discussion we both agreed this book is wrong in SOME of its conclusions and the losses and claims for that day need revising. I would also point out Schneiders claim that Wittmann's Tiger was disabled by a hit damaging the front idler is based SOLEY on his conclusions after viewing the photos of the wreck. He wrongly assumes the damage to the front of this Tiger was caused by the initial hit when closer study of all the photos reveal this damage is not present until AFTER later Allied bombing. Schneider was given the Tiger photo he describes as a 101 tank in Bois Bourdon and although the location is correct the conclusion that it is a 101 Tiger his alone. It is simply an unidentified Tiger in Belgium. 2 other photos he captions as 101 Tigers are definitely not and another is almost certainly not. I guess what I am saying is conclusions based soley on Shneiders assumtions are suspect. When I asked Ron about his conclusions as to the fate of the 3 (Fkl)316 Tiger I's (via Missing Links) he siad it was 'an educated guess'. Ron again seems to base his figures for both 102 and 503 exactly on Schneiders dates for these Units and it looks as if he and I both agree (nearly!) on 503's Losses for 18/7/44. It seems we will never get a completely acurrate day by day loss rate but I will keep on hammering away. My ONLY reason for getting involved in this debate weas to break the straight-jacket of the 'official' reported losses of Tigers in Normandy. Having looked at this subject in considerable detail it was obvious more were lost than the initial figures said. Before we all get too complacent I will remind you we still have a 'problem' with the 2 command Tiger I's said to have been lost in June! I would like more information on the 6 Tiger I's you said were given/taken from 102 on 23rd August as we have photos of 2 'odd' Tigers that don't fit any known Unit.
IP: Logged |
Rich
Moderator
|
posted 12-31-2002 09:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
My ONLY reason for getting involved in this debate weas to break the straight-jacket of the 'official' reported losses of Tigers in Normandy. Having looked at this subject in considerable detail it was obvious more were lost than the initial figures said. Before we all get too complacent I will remind you we still have a 'problem' with the 2 command Tiger I's said to have been lost in June! I would like more information on the 6 Tiger I's you said were given/taken from 102 on 23rd August as we have photos of 2 'odd' Tigers that don't fit any known Unit.
So I see you understand the problems associated with the provenance of photos and the information they contain. But what "straitjacket"? Or am I confused? You do understand that I knew that the official reports are incomplete (and I am sure Niklas as did some of the better historians around), mostly due to the date of record problem? I guess I'm starting to feel like Niklas now, I keep hearing you shout "fire" but can't seem to find where all the smoke and flame is. As to the 6 Tiger's of 101 I'm going by Ron's account. It simply seemed to pat that 6 were assigned and 6 transferred out to repair at nearly the same time. I simply suspect, given the dates and circumstances, that these 6 were in "Zufuehrung" (that is, they were assigned to the battalion), but were never received and that the transfer out was simply a paper transfer. But that is my suspicion.
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 12-31-2002 10:41 AM
Forgive me for losing count....but just how many Tigers are we quibbling about?
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 12-31-2002 12:45 PM
The problem lies not with the photos but more with sloppy research. Both the TEXT and photo captions used in Schneider are equally suspect and neither is totaly reliable. Nicklas did quote the figure of only 4 Tigers written off in the period 15-27th July (page 191, Normandy 1944). It was obvious to anyone with even passing knowledge of the events of 18/7/44 that this figure was wrong. If I haved dated and authenticated photos of 7 Tiger wrecks for that one day I think I can safely say that I KNOW the record, as quoted, is wrong. This evidence is easily available to all as these pictures have been published widely over the years in dozens of books. Yes I place great faith in photos. Memory and records are just as error-prone as photos and most times nothing remains but photographs. The overwhelming bulk of all we know about WWII comes via 'fuzzy' veterans accounts. Constant reminders that photos sometimes have dubious captions do not effect me because I never use a photo as evidence if I can't find out when and where it was taken. At the moment I have a number of photos of 'unknown' Tigers wrecked somewhere in France that I could use to support my claims-if I did not care about getting it exactly right. Sometimes it is impossible to find all these details and reluctantly I have to abandon my attempts to authenticate an event. Having spent a while searching for images I assure you I know all the pitfalls and whilst this does not make me infallible it does make me cautious. Whilst I sometimes use the surviving records as a guide I must confess that I am really only interested in actual wrecks or accounts and these same records only become interesting when they diverge from my findings. [This message has been edited by michael kenny (edited 12-31-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Rich
Moderator
|
posted 12-31-2002 01:28 PM
But Michael, to reiterate yet again, what are your claims? And how do they differ so radically from any of the other numbers posted here? Are you saying that there were a significantly greater number of Tigers lost in June? Or July? Or August? Or for the entire period June-August? How many? When? And how do you support the claim, given the finite number sent to Normandy and the finite number that possibly could have escaped?Or is your claim that you can identify individually a significant number of Tiger losses by exact location, date, time, and cause of loss? That would be interesting indeed and could be valuable for analysis of the campaign, except that the Tigers only made up a fraction of the total armor strength. If the same could be done for the rest of the German armor, then that would be a very valuable tool (but mind you I am not denigrating the research you have done). Again, I remain mystified and more than a little confused?
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 01-01-2003 12:16 AM
I do not make 'claims' as such, I would rather say that I notice(for example) that SS 101 never has more than 20 Tigers in service in July and only loses 18 Tigers. In effect 7 Tigers never get repaired. That is a rough figure,obviously tanks rotate in and out of repair but I would interpret this to mean SOME of these tanks were so badly damaged they could not be fixed (for whatever reason does not matter, not fixed= total loss) At some stage they gave up on them and ?. Abandoned them? Who knows and although someone else may say it is just as possible the long term repair Tigers all got fixed and it was 'new' damaged tanks that put the numbers back up my guess is just as valid as anyone elses. Certainly if we look at a Tiger from Restayns 'Tiger I On The Western Front'(page 111 and said to be 222 or 223) whilst it can only be one of those 2 numbers and seems to be the hull of a 2nd. kp. 101 Tiger the turret most definitely is not the original 222 or 223 turret. At best it is two Tigers made into one and re-numbered (something we know 503 did during the campaign) Some cannibalism seems to have been practised. Same thing with 102. A max of 30 in service with only 6 admitted losses. I also find it odd that Niklas seems to miss out the command Tigers from his chart for 102 on page 181 of his 'Normandy' book. Wood and Dugdale in their book on SS Units in Normandy 1944, whilst using essentially the same reference material get numbers for dates not referenced by Niklas and use the Bef.Pz.VI totals. Is the raw data that jumbled?. As an example of how I would say a damaged-beyond-repair Tiger drifted through the categories I would use Tiger 323 of '503'.According to Leutnant von Rosen this Tiger, after falling through a bridge on 6/7/44 was never repaired and was a total loss. As von Rosen was in the same kp. as this Tiger I expect he would know what actually became of it and if anyone says otherwise I would need good evidence to discount von Rosens version. Anyway we know it is seriously damaged and should qualify as long term repair. 15 '503' Tigers are described as in long term repair on 11/7/44 but by 13/7/44 we have 32 operational Tigers and 13 in short term repair. As the total is now 45 tanks the 'bridge' Tiger must now be in short term repair!. Not untill 17/7/44 do we get any more long term repair Tigers. As von Rosen says it was never fixed it is obvious then that although seriously damaged it was THOUGHT it could be fixed and as such was, for a while at least, kept in the field workshops. You may disagree with my logic and favour other explainations but again my version is equally as valid as any opposing one. Really I am not trying to do anything but match INDIVIDUAL Tiger losses for SS 101 to known wrecks, Allied claims and company losses. A hopeless task I know but I am half-way there and can see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. Obviously this task brought in a lot of information about SS 102 and Heer 503 as well(one Tiger wreck looks like any other and all have to be investigated) and that is why I have some information on those Units as well. I cannot see any problems or why you should be puzzled. We have established there is some elasticity in these reports as well as simple ommisions. Errors also add to our confusion and whilst I am working at the level of INDIVIDUAL losses I am content to know these 'oversights' in the reporting system allow me some leeway in my calculations. I would like to correct an earlier error. I did not mean to imply I had spent 30 years researching this subject. Rather I was listing the extent of my reference material. This was collected over a period of 30 years. Whilst my interests have obviously 'wandered' a bit through the decades I was fortunate to enough to build up a very good collection of books that now are of immense value in trying to solve this puzzle. I am far from bound by the efforts of others and have done a lot of digging in various museums to find my own material where none exists. If only it was possible to post images here........!
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 01-01-2003 09:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by michael kenny:
I do not make 'claims' as such,
Would I mistaken to assume though that the difference we are looking at is some figure between 10 and 40 more Tiger losses, mostly among Tiger IIs? quote:
If only it was possible to post images here........!
It sounds like yours is still a work in progress. There is nothing to stop you from posting the images on a web page of your own (most servers offer a free web page capability for thier clients) and then posting a link in the forum. Our web designer (Ralph Zuljan) I think wisely disabled the ability to post pictures directly on the forum. [This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 01-01-2003).]
IP: Logged |
michael kenny
Senior Member
|
posted 01-01-2003 07:00 PM
Iwould not say it is a matter of 40 Tigers or that it is mainly Tiger II's. I am mainly concerned about the actions up to the Seine crossing the only TigerII's included would be 12 from 503 and the 5 (Fkl)361 tanks left around Chateaudun and the roads East to Janville. Because I am trying to tie down single lost Tigers any result I get won't have any great impact on the overall picture. All I think happened is that there was a slightly higher loss rate for Tigers in July (mainly) and that some of the large number of Tigers discarded in and around August were in effect knocked out earlier. I would have been in conflict with the previousl published ADMITTED total losses and whilst I dont blame anyone in particular for this 'published' figure (which I know was unofficial and calculated from fragmentry information) It is so widely repeated by even recognised Tiger 'experts' that it is hard for an amateur like me to be taken seriously when challenging it. I would say I have learnt a lot in this discussion and I hope my imput was of some benefit in return
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 01-05-2003 05:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rich:
Now the OKH figures:As I said before, a total of 19 Tiger I (including Pz.Bef.Wg.) were recorded as lost in June and 14 in July. The real problem is August, when only 14 again were recorded as lost. Worse, there are no records of losses of the Tiger II for either July or August (partly I suspect because the form used did not include them - and yes I'm serious about that, I've seen odder things in records). However, the later reports filed gave September losses as 70 Tiger I, 23 Tiger II and 2 Pz.Bef.Wg. VI (which are almost certainly Tiger I, but yep, the old form again, it doesn't say, so you get to guess). It appears that actual losses for September were 5 Tiger I and 5 Tiger II, so the excess reported were obviously carry over from June-August (again the date problem). So it appears that the true "reported" losses were about 114 Tiger I and 18 Tiger II for June-August, not very far off from the "real" losses. The remaining "missing" losses were likely reconciled even later (if at all).
Just 10 tiger Is and IIs des for one month in sep seems like a bit of a stretch. One of the other problems assocated with moving des tigers from sep to aug may have been correction of tank destruction never occuring. Due to the nature of the war in aug and the situation just afterwards correction of some equipment losses may never have beeen attempted. The rigid ger tank reporting system may have in some ways hindered itsself during the extremly unusual month of aug 1944.
And while the forms for the OKW may not have included the tiger II losses. The str reports of the individual bats did include ALL tigers including tiger IIs and command tigers. The 503rd on the 13th and 17th of july accounted for 45 tigers in its str reports. None were des sent to fac or missing ALL varities were fully accoutned for.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 01-05-2003 06:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rich:
More fruits from Ron Klages "Trail of the Tigers" with apologies in advance to him regarding any errors I have made.6 July 1/Tiger I/503 (the Tiger that fell through the bridge)
As I΄ve pointed out above thier is serious evidence that this tiger was not destroyed. According to the unit str reports for ALL tigers are accounted for by 13th of july with NONE in long term repair. Again on the 17th all tigers were accounted for. Any reserch that relies on the 503rd unit history and veterns may be wrong. Which makes me doubt rons work is any more authoriative then micheals claims.
IP: Logged | |
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
