WO 32/9596 2 Armd Div withdrawal Pt 1

[ClintHardware]

Well Urmel I am sorry that you think referring to original British War Diaries of units when they were in contact with Axis forces is not me being serious. Mark has outlined his views on units arriving in Egypt and his assumptions on who was present at Mersa Brega 31st March as the shooting began and they were really not right (the RASC topic).

I am not prepared to not question the German given view. The fifty Carriers taken by the Germans that numbered only 44 anyway and some were still present at Derna a week later is a justification for anyone to go back to the original documents from the Field.

I am not prepared to not question War Office and Cabinet statements either.

That I attempt to give all sides of an incident is underlined by the last version of the Panzers damaged document I put out some years go in which there were three columns of data, one of which is German. Although you did not like the data Urmel you were able to help me correct elements of it but you were not equipped to give a different account of its Column A. I have not bothered to give you all version 3 which is slightly altered in respect of several combat episodes.

Mark has previously said that I am an apologist for the British commanders. If the Field diaries and reports showed that they were as incompetent as we have been given to understand by the media then I would be stating they were because there would be no alternative. At the moment they seem to me to have been doing all they could with what was present.

Does anyone here want me to stop adding anything to this Forum?

[Urmel]

It's not the subject matter, it's the tone.

I also disagree with your view that I did not 'like' the data. I did not trust it. That's not the same, but the fact that you think I could like/dislike data shows that you are (in my view) far too emotional about the subject. I like my job, I love my children, but data leaves me stone cold. I either trust it or not. It doesn't generate any feelings.

[ClintHardware]

Well when you get called garbage producer, apologist, liar, fantasist, falsifier and the moderator still fails to step in then WTF ?

I remember it as you using the word "like" at some point. If I am wrong I apologise.

In response to Mark's tirades I have enjoyed referring to Mark as a Wibbler (but he said I was a Wibbler first), and also as Screaming - I guess I should not have done - of course these descriptions are so much worse than those thrown at me.

In respect of the Panzer List none of it was my data because I was not there. Each number came from those who were there and recorded something at sometime. It is not my data it is their data. Several combats include several eye witnesses and these are listed - I can't improve on that but as it is all there is what else can we trust unless we can find more of the same to make corrections and additions.

[Attrition]

I'd like you to continue because you have seen sources which the likes of me can only dream of. I think that between outbreaks of contumely and proprietorial apprehension, your findings have been given some serious scrutiny, which is a good thing, demonstrated by your willingness to adapt your views accordingly.

My view on this is that the "traditional" view is untenable, because of its internal contradictions and my preference these days for explanations which rely much more on structures and functions and their relationship to the opponents' equivalents, than the personalities of individuals. Mark's right that the British commanders didn't cover themselves with glory but the apparently low level of British casualties, even at Mechili, begs the question of what they did right. I'm still laughing at Cyrcom being reliant on Italian telephone operators....

[Urmel]

In respect of the Panzer List none of it was my data because I was not there. Each number came from those who were there and recorded something at sometime. It is not my data it is their data. Several combats include several eye witnesses and these are listed - I can't improve on that but as it is all there is what else can we trust unless we can find more of the same to make corrections and additions.

I never said it was your data or that the issues I had with it are related to you. The data, regardless of its origin, needs to be assessed and validated. We discussed the issues with eye witness reliability in the past.

[ClintHardware]

Thanks Attrition. In respect of MGB 8 I meant on the 14th April not "after" - sorry. My comment about 5./ MGB 8 on the 10th stands in that we have no report of losses despite the weight of fire, the distances and the timings. There are holes in the data of both sides but the German data leaves more questions than answers.

So my preference is to establish what was present, where was it sited and what lethal and damaging effect did it have. This is often illustrated to some extent by what got fielded for the next attack or later attacks and by whom as far as we can discover.

Urmel I agree with you on reliability that is why I report every element of data.

[MarkN]

Oh my!!!

Since you seem determined to make this all about you, I will indulge you for the duration of this post.

So my preference is to establish what was present, where was it sited and what lethal and damaging effect did it have.

And for reasons best known to yourself, you consistently elect to accept wild claims from British troops and disregard / disbelieve entries in German WDs and accounts. Moreover, you have a prediliction for assuming German units were present at various locations without a shred of evidence to support those assumptions. Hardly "establish[ing] what was present" by sound research, is it?

This is often illustrated to some extent by what got fielded for the next attack or later attacks and by whom as far as we can discover.

Following this analytical process will only lead to a complete false understanding of historical fact. Perhaps that's why so often your analysis is so wrong.

Indeed, it was you that proved how unhelpful this approach is. Remember the MG.Btl.8 thread where you worked backwards with your maths to prove that they had lost 600 at Mersa Brega on the 31st of March? I'll repost one of your comments...

I checked my 92 reference and I am sorry to say I had not noted where it had come from. I will do my best to find out.

The question remains: How do 1400 men attack for more than an hour against four Vickers MMG and two platoons of the 9th Rifle Brigade (1st THR) and have no casualties? Two guns from 11 Platoon of 'Y' Company 1st RNF used thousands of rounds against whoever it was coming towards them and also their rifles when targets presented themselves.

Another question is why does the account of MGB8 say nothing of any significance about the fighting for Mersa Brega.

And then where were the 700 men of MG8 on the 11th April not involved in the attack and why are there only 500 for the 14th?

Historical fact shows that MG.Btl.8 did not take part in the attack on 31st March and thus suffered zero casualties. Nevertheless, your analytical process had come up with them attacking with 1,400 (falsehood), perhaps losing 600 (bizarre analytical failure) and your belief that German accounts are deliberately excluding data and lieing (abysmal commentary). Moreover, it demonstrates your acute lack of understanding of what happened, how a unit is established and fights.

Prior to that comment of yours, the poster Brevity had already put up the English translation of a quote from the MG.Btl.8 published history. A published history that is based upon the MG.Btl.8 KTB and former MG.Btl.8 troops personal recollections. Brevity wrote:-

Losses for 1-12 April were 27 dead and 81 wounded, also 13 missing from 1. and 4. companies who fell in enemy hands S of Derna

I have the excerpt from that book and his translation is solid. Your determination not to believe anything that contradicts your false narrative knows no bounds.

Bringing this up to date, you will notice that this data includes your current concern regarding 5./MG.Btl.8 on 10th April.

In respect of MGB 8 I meant on the 14th April not "after" - sorry. My comment about 5./ MGB 8 on the 10th stands in that we have no report of losses despite the weight of fire, the distances and the timings. There are holes in the data of both sides but the German data leaves more questions than answers.

The "holes in the data of both sides" certainly exist, "but the German data leaves more questions than answers" is primarily a consequence of your attempt to fit the data into your false narrative.

The same book suggest that the losses sustained (exact number not stated) on the 10th were mainly found within 1./ and 2./MG.Btl.8 NOT 5./MG.Btl.8. No doubt you will now conclude that this is a deliberate German conspiracy to hide the truth from all of us.


To repeat what I posted last time out:-
- If you share some of the fantastic original documentation that you have found, you can expect to be thanked.
- If you post your abysmal analysis, commentary or historical falsehoods, you can expect to be challenged, corrected or ridiculed.

Please keep posting the fantastic original documentation you find. Please do not get uppity when others find fault or error in your personal additions to that data.

[ClintHardware]

WOW That is Mark on display in all his glory.

Do you all approve and agree with his comments?

And no your comments do not answer any of the questions I have raised. You are the "Reference Dodger" and you do nothing about it.

BTW The reason I believe 5. Kompanie was used in the attack on the 10th is from Ponath
Oberstleutnant Gustav Ponath, Maschinengewehr Bataillon 8
[On April 10] 0800 hrs the deployed bataillon advances on TOBRUK, Artillery does not come up. 5. Kompanie carries out recce under fire from British armoured cars. Forward it goes irresistibly. At KM 16 bridge blows up just in front of our point (spearhead). Simultaneously strong enemy arty fire. (WO 201/353)

Is this wrong?

[Attrition]

I think Mark risks hoisting himself on his own petard. I'd rather this discussion added to the sum of human knowledge than turned into a win-lose argument.

[Urmel]

It works both ways. If you dismiss Marks' arguments because he doesn't give you the reference, you'll end up looking stupid too, since it is clear that the references are there and sound. Whether you can check them or not doesn't affect that, and shouldn't stop anyone from engaging with them.

[MarkN]

I'd rather this discussion added to the sum of human knowledge than turned into a win-lose argument.

Couldn't agree more!

Indulgence is over. These threads are not about who is right and who is wrong. The threads are about what is historical fact and what is fantasy.

So, we need ask ourselves for example,
- how many losses did MG.Btl.8 incur at Mersa el Brega on 31 March: was it zero or several hundred?
- was MG.Btl.8 even involved in the fighting at Mersa el Brega on 31 March: yes or no?
- was 5./MG.Btl.8 involved in the fighting on the outskirts of Tobruk on 10 April: yes or no?
- how many losses did 5./MG.Btl.8 incur in the fighting on the outskirts of Tobruk on 10 April: many or few?

The evidence that I have to hand comes up with the following:
- Zero.
- No.
- Perhaps. They are not specifically mentionned in the published history of the unit nor the DAK KTB or any othere reference I have to hand.
- Their lack of mention, contrasted to the specific mention of 1. and 2.Kp, suggests very few, if any.
- And let's not forget the total casualty list 1-12 April was: 27 dead and 81 wounded, also 13 missing from 1. and 4. companies


Edited to add since I didn't see your edit initially:
Thank you for reminding me that Ponath mentions 5.Kp. However, as you have correctly posted, his words describe 5.Kp coming "under fire from British armoured cars". It says they then go forward but doesn't specifically mention that they were caught by the machine guns of the NF detachment then or later, does it?

[ClintHardware]

Agreed. I don't want to win anything.

Mark I will respond to your post tomorrow .

Urmel when someone adds something and does not tell us where from its not easily checkable - we have been trying to find Jentz's stuff since 1997 and Bovington are not sure either in all respects. I have not been perfect in this myself but I usually do state where stuff is from and I will find out when asked.

[MarkN]

The pages from the published history of MG.Btl.8 "Nur Ein Batalion" concerning the 10th of April were posted on this forum less than a month ago by shane1967. Thank you shane. Anybody can read the words, not just me. All participants with an interest in this subject should have read the words already.

[MarkN]

What part of "Jentz's stuff" is missing? I don't understand.

[ClintHardware]

I re-check it tomorrow and hope it includes Ponath's note on 5. Kompanie.