German ETO destroyed armor 1944-1945

[Shermaninterest]

I see you continue to mix 'written off', 'lost' and 'casualty' in your writing. They all mean different things.

I don't. 7 tanks were officially "written off" for the entire December of the Battle. 20 tanks seem to be "casualties" on the 19/20 just in one unit. At hand numbers dropped massively so did operational numbers. So without knowing exact numbers the 7 written off seem to be very unlikely. Remember the division fought around Bastogne for more than just the two days. I don't see how people think the 7 is even possible. Bergstrom explains this by claiming the records were lost. His position seems entirely reasonable to me. Just assuming the 20 casualties were literally the only casualties the entire unit suffered during December than they repaired 70% of them while getting forced back? This alone seems unlikely but those are only the numbers available for one ad hoc combat unit in 2 days!

[Richard Anderson]

I see you continue to mix 'written off', 'lost' and 'casualty' in your writing. They all mean different things.

I don't. 7 tanks were officially "written off" for the entire December of the Battle. 20 tanks seem to be "casualties" on the 19/20 just in one unit. At hand numbers dropped massively so did operational numbers. So without knowing exact numbers the 7 written off seem to be very unlikely. Remember the division fought around Bastogne for more than just the two days. I don't see how people think the 7 is even possible. Bergstrom explains this by claiming the records were lost. His position seems entirely reasonable to me. Just assuming the 20 casualties were literally the only casualties the entire unit suffered during December than they repaired 70% of them while getting forced back? This alone seems unlikely but those are only the numbers available for one ad hoc combat unit in 2 days!

Excuse me, but where does Bergstrom state those 7 we're write offs? Or even give a source? Next, until you realize what 10th Armored did you will not understand why they reported what they did.

[MarkN]

I don't. 7 tanks were officially "written off" for the entire December of the Battle. 20 tanks seem to be "casualties" on the 19/20 just in one unit. At hand numbers dropped massively so did operational numbers. So without knowing exact numbers the 7 written off seem to be very unlikely. Remember the division fought around Bastogne for more than just the two days. I don't see how people think the 7 is even possible. Bergstrom explains this by claiming the records were lost. His position seems entirely reasonable to me. Just assuming the 20 casualties were literally the only casualties the entire unit suffered during December than they repaired 70% of them while getting forced back? This alone seems unlikely but those are only the numbers available for one ad hoc combat unit in 2 days!

Again, what was the start number? If you don't have the start number, how do you know how many it dropped by?

A 'casualty' can be a vehicle that has run out of petrol or diesel and thus has to be abandoned. It can even be listed as a 'loss' if the enemy takes the ground. But is it a 'write off'? Was it recaptured and put back into use?

How many vehicles were mechanical 'casualties' on the initial advance to Bastogne, from Bastogne to the outlying area or in the retreat?

How many tanks did CCR/9AD start with and end up with? You seem to be including their numbers in your calculations too.

More holes than Swiss cheese....

[Shermaninterest]

Again, what was the start number? If you don't have the start number, how do you know how many it dropped by?

A 'casualty' can be a vehicle that has run out of petrol or diesel and thus has to be abandoned. It can even be listed as a 'loss' if the enemy takes the ground. But is it a 'write off'? Was it recaptured and put back into use?

How many vehicles were mechanical 'casualties' on the initial advance to Bastogne, from Bastogne to the outlying area or in the retreat?

How many tanks did CCR/9AD start with and end up with? You seem to be including their numbers in your calculations too.

More holes than Swiss cheese....

I get the impression you are emotionally invested. Obviously, the entire thing has "holes" that's why we don't have definitive numbers in the first place. I don't have concrete numbers for write-offs I listed some examples which support my theory that the 7 write-offs are an incomplete.

Excuse me, but where does Bergstrom state those 7 we're write offs? Or even give a source? Next, until you realize what 10th Armored did you will not understand why they reported what they did.

He does not specifically write that those are write-offs but he writes it directly after your number set and states those losses are given. So I assume he refers to this data. But what else is this supposed to be? Some sentences after that he explains that the unit suffered 20 casualties in one Battle how can the 7 then refer to anything else than write-offs? If those 7 would just be casualties the numbers would be even more suspect, wouldn't they?

I have some vague understanding of what the 10th AD has done during the Battle of the Bulge and to be honest, 7 write-offs sounds outlandish to me. But I didn't plan to make a fuzz, I presented my views and why I think the figures are likely incomplete. If nobody is convinced I can't help it.

[Richard Anderson]

He does not specifically write that those are write-offs but he writes it directly after your number set and states those losses are given. So I assume he refers to this data. But what else is this supposed to be? Some sentences after that he explains that the unit suffered 20 casualties in one Battle how can the 7 then refer to anything else than write-offs? If those 7 would just be casualties the numbers would be even more suspect, wouldn't they?

You realize your making an assumption about what you believe Christer said? Rather than taking what he said itself? You're making assumptions about assumptions. I hope you realize how problematic that is?

[Shermaninterest]

Actually, I meant casualties when I said it. The 40 operational tanks for an entire Armored division ( plus another CC) sounds like major casualties happened. Why are you so hung up on the words? I know the difference and explained multiple times how I think the casualty number contradicts the final write-off numbers. Are you even open to the arguments? I am not trying to forcefully change your perspective...

[MarkN]

I get the impression you are emotionally invested.

Really? And what gives you that impression? The ease at which I highlight the weaknesses in your arguments, points and beliefs? Or are you just projecting?

You still haven't come back with a number of how many tanks CCB/10AD started the 'battle' with. So your 'emotionally invested' "numbers dropped massively" is utterly without substance.

Let's narrow it down even further. You previously wrote:-

He now explains that parts of the unit lost 20 tanks in a single action the Battle of Longvilly.

...and now...

Some sentences after that he explains that the unit suffered 20 casualties in one Battle ...

So, what part of 10AD fought the "Battle of Longvilly"? How many tanks did they send forward towards Longvilly and how many took part in the "Battle of Longvilly"?

I have some vague understanding of what the 10th AD has done during the Battle of the Bulge and to be honest, 7 write-offs sounds outlandish to me. But I didn't plan to make a fuzz, I presented my views and why I think the figures are likely incomplete. If nobody is convinced I can't help it.

You have "some vague understanding" and you expect somebody who has studied the primary documents and co-authored a book on the subject and seemed rather put out that you have failed to "convince". Nevertheless, try not to let your "emotional investment" get the better of you as clearly this subject is quite "outlandish".

PS. Probably less than 20 tanks from 10AD even went forward towards Longvilly. Hence why others find your beliefs and determination to "convince" rather weak.

Team Cherry subdivided into two teams:
Team Hyduke—(A/3—1 Plt) (1 Plt & 1 Sqd C/20) (D/3—2 Plts) (1 sqd 3/C/55).
Team Ryerson—(AG[assault gun] Plt) (Mortar Plt), (C/20 AIB—1 Plt & 1 Sqd) (1 Plt A/3) (1 Sqd 3/C/55) marched from Strassen, Luxembourg, to
Longvilly, Belgium.
Team Cherry in order of March, Team Hyduke, Team Ryerson, Trains, left Strassen at 1130 hours and head of column reached Longvilly at 1930 Hrs. Distance marched 41-5 miles. Column halted closed up on road from Bastogne to Longvilly with head of column at Longvilly. 2/D/90 became attached to Team Cherry when column reached Bastogne and led column to Longvilly where contact was made with CCR, 9th Armored Division. Team trains went into assembly area at Bastogne. Bn CP was located at Neffe. Battalion Commander Col. Cherry and Battalion S-3 went forward to CP, CCR 9th Armored Division. Road blocks manned by elements of CCR 9th AD were then in the process of being bypassed by the enemy. Information obtained of friendly and enemy troops was vague. Team Ryerson and Hyduke were ordered to remain in their present positions and to make a reconnaissance as soon as possible in their immediate vicinity for defensive positions. At 2339 elements of CCR, 9th AD and 28th Inf Div started withdrawing from Longvilly.
Source: Team Cherry after action report: December 18, 1944

From the above: Team Hyduke = 1 platoon of medium tanks, 2 platoons of light tanks. Team Ryerson = 1 platoon of medium tanks.

Edit: On reflection the words above are not clear. Does A/3-1Plt mean (a) 1 platoon of A Coy/3 Tank Battalion or (b) A Coy/3 Tank Battalion less 1 Platoon? I'm now beginning to suspect it means the latter. Thus: Team Hyduke = 2 platoons of medium tanks, 1 platoon of light tanks.

At 1307 Team Hyduke was ordered to return to Neffe by way of the Longvilly, Bastogne Road and join forces with Team Ryerson. Team Hyduke at this time was receiving attacks from both flanks by enemy tanks, small arms fire and being shelled by enemy artillery. Team Hyduke reached Team Ryerson just West of Mageret and the two (2) teams consolidated at 1500. At 1900 Team Ryerson now consolidated with Team Hyduke entered and held part of Mageret. At 2145, Team Ryerson was attacked again by enemy tanks and infantry. Continuous attacks were beaten off again by our forces in Mageret.
Source: Team Cherry after action report: December 19, 1944

From the above: Your "Battle of Longvilly" was principally a CCR/9AD affair it seems.

[MarkN]

Actually, I meant casualties when I said it. The 40 operational tanks for an entire Armored division ( plus another CC) sounds like major casualties happened. Why are you so hung up on the words? I know the difference and explained multiple times how I think the casualty number contradicts the final write-off numbers. Are you even open to the arguments? I am not trying to forcefully change your perspective...

Errrr!!!

Now I see the problem. You have no idea of the forces involved. Please see my post above.

[Shermaninterest]

He does not specifically write that those are write-offs but he writes it directly after your number set and states those losses are given. So I assume he refers to this data. But what else is this supposed to be? Some sentences after that he explains that the unit suffered 20 casualties in one Battle how can the 7 then refer to anything else than write-offs? If those 7 would just be casualties the numbers would be even more suspect, wouldn't they?

You realize your making an assumption about what you believe Christer said? Rather than taking what he said itself? You're making assumptions about assumptions. I hope you realize how problematic that is?

Yes, I realize that but I did so because you did not object to the 7 earlier. Given that Bergstrom references your research and the "7" was mentioned several times before without you correcting it, I assumed you knew this number. He says "losses" shortly after mentioning 530 Sherman losses ( write-offs according to your data I assume ) what else is this supposed to mean? But then again if it is not write-offs the discrepancy would be certainly worse. 7 tank casualties for the entire month? Either way, the number seems considerably too low. You should publish your research about this and people would have an easier time discussing this subject. I would certainly buy it. If the "7" are not write-offs you could tell us. Maybe Bergstrom got something wrong but unless the initial "7" is incorrect his conclusions seem reasonable. The figures are too low due to missing data.

ibiblio:

"The records of the badly fragmented armor absorbed in the lines of the 101st Airborne are so scanty as to give no really precise strength figures." In regards to the CCB after Longvilly.

[MarkN]

ibiblio:

"The records of the badly fragmented armor absorbed in the lines of the 101st Airborne are so scanty as to give no really precise strength figures." In regards to the CCB after Longvilly.

Not correct. The quote is as follows (my underlining): "Probably CCB, 10th Armored, and CCR, 9th Armored, had between them some forty operable medium tanks by the 21st."

How many tanks did CCR, 9th Armored start and end up with?

How many tanks did CCB, 10th Armored start and end up with?

Note: CCA and CCR, 10th Armored were not involved at Bastogne!

[MarkN]

He says "losses" shortly after mentioning 530 Sherman losses ( write-offs according to your data I assume ) what else is this supposed to mean? ... 7 tank casualties for the entire month?

In view of my correction to my post above, and your focus on Sherman rather than tanks in general, it maybe worth your time in understanding that 10AD had no more than 2 platoons (ie 10 Shermans) as far forward as Longvilly. Does that put the numbers into better perspective given that you seem to believe the entire division was in situ?

[Shermaninterest]

Errrr!!!

Now I see the problem. You have no idea of the forces involved. Please see my post above.

I just quoted Huge M. Cole. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/US ... 9.html#fn8

Really? And what gives you that impression?

To be honest you seem hostile.

The 20 casualties is taken directly from Bergstrom and not my research, I did say that when I first brought it up. I don't know how he got this number. If you have concrete evidence then you might wanna provide it.

You have "some vague understanding" and you expect somebody who has studied the primary documents and co-authored a book on the subject and seemed rather put out that you have failed to "convince".

Yes, some vague understanding which lets me believe that 7 write-offs seems far too low. This feeling gets supported by several examples of inconsistencies and overall strength figures. Would you raise the same point against Bergstrom? It's his argument in the first place... . If I am not knowledgeable enough to questions those number then maybe Bergstrom is.

How do you explain the numbers from Zalogas thunderbolt then? They had 51 Shermans less in their January count then in their December count ( whenever those counts were done ) . So you assume 7 of those happened in December and the rest ( minimum 44 ) at unknown battles? Not even including replacements? Don't see how this is possible at all to be honest. I guess you will question me now when those counts were done, and I don't know but unless you can find the other battles were the 10th AD had serious casualties we are kinda left with the Bulge.

Not correct. The quote is as follows (my underlining): "Probably CCB, 10th Armored, and CCR, 9th Armored, had between them some forty operable medium tanks by the 21st."

You are correct. But does this change much? Two CCs with 40 operational mediums = heavy casualties sustained after 2 days of battle.

[Shermaninterest]

I want to add that according to Bergstrom the 10th AD is only one example. The same inconsistencies are found with the 9th AD.

[MarkN]

I just quoted Huge M. Cole. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/US ... 9.html#fn8

But, in your words, you're trying to "convince" others - and seem rather disappointed in your failure to do so - when you haven't got a clue about the historical realities. There is nothing hostile in countering your attempt to convince us of historical falsehoods with historical realities.

But does this change much? Two CCs with 40 operational mediums = heavy casualties sustained after 2 days of battle.

Yes.

See my post above. 10AD had probably no more than 10 Shermans in Longvilly at any point in time. I have no idea how many they left there. The notion that they lost, had written off or even suffered 20 casualties in the "Battle of Longvilly" is just plain silly.

Now, read your ibiblio again and do some analysis. Ask yourself, ponder and conclude...

1) How many (estimated based on establishment) Shermans in CCR 9AD?
2) How many (estimated based on establishment) Shermans in CCB 10AD?
3) What does your ibiblio say were CCR 9AD losses?
4) add (1) and (2) then subtract (3). What do you get?

This will produce a rather unacademic result, but since ibiblio seems to be one of your go-to sources, I thought it sensible to use that.

[Shermaninterest]

What's your take on the 51 fewer Shermans despite replacements?