Knocked Out Panzers: 4th Armd Bde Assessment

[Urmel]

Only 25 Pz.III were shipped later in 1941, and most were quickly lost in Crusader, so their photos are rare but based on several examples it seems most were early Ausf.J with a few Ausf.H

The last shipment in 1941, of which half was sunk, and the remainder arrived on Ankara in Benghazi on 22 December, wasn't actually lost that quickly, they would have kicked around a while due to the low losses suffered at the end of December when 22 Armoured Brigade was taken apart and during the counteroffensive.

[ClintHardware]

You also have previous for only reading the first half of a paragraph which has information to suit your narrative whilst ignoring the second half of the same paragraph which proves the nonsense of your narrative.

So, do my chuckles have any foundation? Let's see.

No.

Firstly, I gave a full explanation and apology of the above.

Secondly, the remainder of the document does not pose a problem with anything I have stated within this topic.

Thirdly, IIRC the debate at that time was about numbers seen by the few remaining tanks of 5th RTR and those fired upon by them. The German information did not change those numbers with any absolute certainty and neither did the British information. The data and the point were not affected by my error concerning Lister.

You may explain how the 7th RTR document does not suit my narrative.

[MarkN]

No.

Firstly, I gave a full explanation and apology of the above.

Secondly, the remainder of the document does not pose a problem with anything I have stated within this topic.

Thirdly, IIRC the debate at that time was about numbers seen by the few remaining tanks of 5th RTR and those fired upon by them. The German information did not change those numbers with any absolute certainty and neither did the British information. The data and the point were not affected by my error concerning Lister.

You may explain how the 7th RTR document does not suit my narrative.

The key here is not your apologies nor your explanations nor even the relevenace of the inaccuracies you post here. The key here is are you writing your books with this inaccurate information too?

You had convinced yourself that Drew wrote the report, not Lister, despite Lister's name and signature being on the bottom of the document. Presumably, being written by Drew better suited the narrative you wish to tell. You had convinced yourself that replacement tanbks had arrived much earlier than in reality despite the very same paragraph in Jentz saying otherwise. It was clear that having those tanks earlier suited the narrative you are trying to tell.

Now, do you have that 7RTR report dated 23 June? When you first posted the excerpt of it here, you mention that date not once but TWICE - as if the date of its coming into being as having particular/specific meaning. I gently pointed you towards checking your facts and you reiterated that it was indeed dated 23 June. Presumably you checked first. Or did you just assume that you were right and I was wrong as you have done in previous discussions with me and others? I've put up the evidence that the document is dated 30 June but am willing to conceed it could be a duplication of one a week later. Can you post up your version evidencing the 23 June date, or is this yet another inaccuracy that you have tried to argue your way out of by accusing others of being wrong? If the date is indeed important to your narrative, then once again you are heading towards telling a narrative that is historically inaccurate.

That's the point. Helping you get your book as accurate as possible. You just make it all very hard for yourself by repeatedly refusing to accept your errors and accusing others of being at fault....

So, do you have that 7RTR report dated 23 June?

[ClintHardware]

The key here is not your apologies nor your explanations nor even the relevenace of the inaccuracies you post here. The key here is are you writing your books with this inaccurate information too?

No. The Key is that I owned up to an error I was led to by an incomplete photograph and Edward Wilson's book referring to Drew not Lister. Get your facts straight. His book is Press On Regardless and contains no references just like Jentz.

You had convinced yourself that Drew wrote the report

No. Edward Wilson had me convinced. I went back to Kew and found you were correct and I acknowledged that and the circumstances.

You had convinced yourself that replacement tanbks had arrived much earlier than in reality despite the very same paragraph in Jentz saying otherwise. It was clear that having those tanks earlier suited the narrative you are trying to tell.

No. The report was about the 2nd April firefight and there were no replacement tanks at that time. And Mark you have made it clear in the past year by your behaviour and words that you do not want to help and take delight in hindering through lack of references.

Now in respect of the Lister/Drew controversy you will be pleased to know that both British and German accounts appear in my book for the reader to understand the differences.

Where one account can not be brought together with another I give both and say so with their sources in the text. The reader decides not me.

Where accounts seem to match they are brought together with their sources in the text.

All sources are credited in the text in long form and not just at the back of the book. Readers get it twice - with Jentz we get no references for these months of fighting.

You Mark want me to tell one narrative which you hope is wrong because that fits your needs of derision.

I know you are a bright and talented person because I have seen your valued contributions but you have an edge that is acidic and difficult. I have responded to that badly in the past and I intend to not do so again. I can not promise that I will succeed. Criticism and help is good. Derision is a sport. I have to admit I enjoy that sport too which is not useful.

Now to the point: What is in your 7thRTR photos of the 30th June dated document that poses a problem to anything I have said in this topic?

After your explanation I will disclose what I have.

[MarkN]

You Mark want me to tell one narrative which you hope is wrong because that fits your needs of derision.

Rubbish! Complete twaddle!

I know you are a bright and talented person because I have seen your valued contributions but you have an edge that is acidic and difficult. I have responded to that badly in the past and I intend to not do so again. I can not promise that I will succeed. Criticism and help is good. Derision is a sport. I have to admit I enjoy that sport too which is not useful.

Thank you for the kind words in there.

What you perceive as "acidic and difficult" was initially my approach of last resort to cut through your stubborness and determination to be accepted as right and dismiss anything challenging your narrative. You may or may not recall that our very first exchange here consisted of you stating your lengthy period of research in an attempt to somehow invoke superiorty of knowledge and expertise. Not a good start. Not a good way to demonstrate your willingness to accept alternative vews and corrections. And whilst you may not have appreciated my attitude or tone in that first exchange, it was your understanding (despite that lengthy period of research) which was at fault.

Nevertheless, what was initially an approach of last resort has become more often the approach of choice since it seem to be the only way you wake up and see that you need to readdress your own assumptions and narrative. For example, remember the confusion over delivery dates of German tanks? A discussion had been had where more than one poster had provided the evidence to demonstrate your narrative was incorrect. One poster had gone to polite, but extreme measures, to highlight this to you. Water of your duck's back. It took my bluntness, "acidic and difficult", over a year later for you to grasp the error. Had I not been so "acidic and difficult", I suspect you would still be living in that false narrative and your books would be reflecting that error. It was pretty much the same regarding the Schorm diaries, the units involved at Marsa Brega, non reorganisations of the RAC, how many guns in the establishment of 1RHA and so on and on and on.

In my experience, sadly, the only way to get through to you is via the "acidic and difficult" route. I'm not doing it for you, I'm doing for the people who fork out £20 or £30 for your book. I just hope your editor or publisher is picking up all the errors before printing.

Now to the point: What is in your 7thRTR photos of the 30th June dated document that poses a problem to anything I have said in this topic?

What point?

Here's how it went:
1) You posted an excerpt from a 7RTR report.
2) I had nothing of substance to say on the matter, so made no comment.
3) You encouraged me to go back to it with the words: "Mark I think you missed my post on page 2 about 7th RTR data." See here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p2036639
4) I hadn't missed it, I had moved beyond it. The only comment I had regarding it was the query on the date. Having originally decided not to question you on it, I decided that perhaps there was significance in it since you had mentionned the date twice in your commentary. Hence my subsequent post.
5) And so on....

I have no problem with the content of the report. It is a typical example of over-exaggeration. If you wish, we could start a discussion as to why they were prone to over-exaggeration and the consequences of that over-exacggeration. But I suspect that's not where you want to go and demonstrates that - despite your perception of an "acidic and difficult" attitude - I'm actually going really easy on you!

The only comment I have on that post relates to your claim that the document is dated 23 June 1941. A claim that may or may not be true. An issue that is utterly insignificant (hence my initial ignoring of it) unless the date of the document plays a significant part in your narrative. Does it?

After your explanation I will disclose what I have.

Off you go.

[ClintHardware]

No you do not struggle out of this by saying you did not have a point. And you have previous for missing posts.

I will test and re-test data despite your criticisms. I will include the Axis views of events and also the Commonwealth views of events. In the next few days I will post a topic covering the 14th September in respect of Sommernachtstraum because statements again underline disparity. Disparities are worth reporting even if they cannot be resolved.

You also have previous in laying smoke screens such as your statement about British records of British tank losses and states.

There was also...... The Curious Incident of Herr Mocker Offering Photographs in the Night..... he logged in only once. Can you remember his password?

[MarkN]

No you do not struggle out of this by saying you did not have a point. And you have previous for missing posts.

I will test and re-test data despite your criticisms. I will include the Axis views of events and also the Commonwealth views of events. In the next few days I will post a topic covering the 14th September in respect of Sommernachtstraum because statements again underline disparity. Disparities are worth reporting even if they cannot be resolved.

Oh dear!

We seem to be peddling around the same old, same old.....

We both accept that the British claims were overinflated. We appear to disagree as to what the consequences of that were.

For some reason, you have got hung up on a minor element of the story: the 7RTR report. You seem to have got a bee in your bonnet that I have something to say about it. I don't. It is an example of what we both agree on: British over exaggeration. So why do you keep coming back to it and post bizarre statements such as I can "not struggle out of this"?

Relative to this conversation, I see nothing of significance worth discussing in its contents. It may, however, be an interesting piece of evidence for a discussion about the consequences of the over exaggerated claims. The only "struggle" appears to be in your acceptence that I have nothing to say about it. Our only point of difference is the date which it was produced.

When you originally posted the excerpt, you wrote TWICE that it was dated 23 June. Having insisted that I go back and have another look, I queried the date. You reaffirmed that your copy was indeed dated 23 June. The date of its airing seems to hold special significance to you as you are quite determined to keep coming back to that document and still maintain it was first outed on the 23rd. A document being reissued a week later is not impossible. Stranger things can be found in WDs. Perhaps, if it was indeed issued twice, there is some significance in that. But what?

I posted images of the top and the bottom so that others can see for themselves that the wording of the document in my possession is identical to your transcription and so that they can see the date. I do not expect, or even ask, others to accept my words - they can read it for themselves.

Have you done, can you do, the same? Or, is everybody just to accept your word because ...?

You also have previous in laying smoke screens such as your statement about British records of British tank losses and states.

There was also...... The Curious Incident of Herr Mocker Offering Photographs in the Night..... he logged in only once. Can you remember his password?

Now you sound like you're transcribing words from an episode of Allo Allo! Is the password, "listen very carefully, I will say this only once"?

[ClintHardware]

Mark I think you have the wrong end of why I posted this topic.

My interest is in the disparity of British and Commonwealth reports and accounts compared to Axis and behind this is probably (not definitely) the effect of the 2-Pdr and 37mm Bofors peppering AFVs with shot and causing damage on and within them. I gave data within this topic I had recently found and I had thought it would raise interest. IIRC in the Panzer Regiment 8 book there is an account of what appears to be behind armour wounding of panzer crew members and there are other accounts of wounded crew members in other sources. Were they all on the outside at the time of wounding? I doubt that.

I also posted because I don't recall seeing those very high British figures given in any media produced during the last 75 years. If I find any more data I will share it here or within another topic.

You have not fulfilled the task I gave you so I shall say auf wiedersehen Herr Mocker.

Auf Wiedersehen

[MarkN]

Mark I think you have the wrong end of why I posted this topic.

Very probably. I am not able to read your mind.

My interest is in the disparity of British and Commonwealth reports and accounts compared to Axis and behind this is probably (not definitely) the effect of the 2-Pdr and 37mm Bofors peppering AFVs with shot and causing damage on and within them. I gave data within this topic I had recently found and I had thought it would raise interest. IIRC in the Panzer Regiment 8 book there is an account of what appears to be behind armour wounding of panzer crew members and there are other accounts of wounded crew members in other sources. Were they all on the outside at the time of wounding? I doubt that.

There can be no doubt that the engagement was swift and intense. Around Capuzzo, 8.Pz.Regt was compelled to halt their counter-attacks. Twice, I think. No doubt pantsers were hit and temporarily disabled. No doubt casualties were inflicted on personnel too. You have the DAK diary information on tank losses. Here is the DAK reported personnel losses:
DAK tps : 2 killed, 4 wounded, 0 missing
5.lei.Div : 34 killed, 142 wounded, 8 missing
15.Pz.Div : 59 killed, 208 wounded, 227 missing
Italian : 43 killed, 7 wounded, 301 missing

This, of course, is total casualties in the battle, NOT just pantser troops. Bearing that in mind, I doubt there is much there to suggest over a 100 pantsers were "knocked out" to the degree suggested by the British reports.

I also posted because I don't recall seeing those very high British figures given in any media produced during the last 75 years.

Probably because all concerned recognised the disconnect of the claims with reality.

You have not fulfilled the task I gave you so I shall say auf wiedersehen Herr Mocker.

You ought to understand ClintHardware that I do not feel obliged in any shape,size or form to fulfill, or even attempt, any task that you set. The arrogance in your belief that somehow you determine my effort is deliciously amusing. For that reason, I do not demand that you present evidence that the copy of the 7RTR report that you have is dated 23rd June. It is for you to decide whether the readers of this thread are likely to believe or disbelieve your claim and whether presenting that evidence will help.

Nevertheless, I don't know which task it is you speak of. The Herr Mocker reference provides no help in identifying what you're after.

[ClintHardware]

Mark nice data thank you.

I am amused that you are "deliciously amused" and again you underline your motives.

You demand ??

LMAO here

[ClintHardware]

Why were the delusional? Probably because of their education and societal upbringing.

In respect of the high Battleaxe British figures a view/comparison can be made with the attack at Tobruk 30th April,1st and 2nd May. Prior to that attack 161 panzers had been landed and received by Panzer Regiment 5 up to the 29th April, but for that very important attack only 81 could be fielded. There had been 21 written off/left out of reach during previous fighting and (IIRC) two had gone to the frontier, so 57 were not available for the strongest contested next battle even though there had been two weeks for repairs and for some of the lightly wounded to return to duty.

The werkstatt report of the 5th May is an aggregate of mechanical repair work completed before and up to the 4th or 5th May and some of the panzers it refers to could have been through the workshop and returned for operations more than once. The werkstatt kompanie would have worked every hour to repair all those that could be repaired but 57 were not present for a crucial attack. The damage of those not present might all have been mechanical but is very unlikely after all the various firefights since the 31st March with tanks, anti-tank guns and field artillery.

The crew losses on the 1st May were initially 1 missing, 2 officers and 12 others wounded according to Hohmann but we do not know if he knew the whole situation at the moment he wrote his report. To what extent those wounded were wounded behind their armour is not certain. The mines damaged tracks but were too weak to wreck a panzer so it is unlikely that many of those were wounded by mines.

What we do know of Battleaxe is that despite the British tank losses, Rommel’s AFVs were still unable to take any advantage of that situation. That may have been due to logistics but Rommel did not let logistics stop him taking some ten or eleven days to reach Tobruk and launch his first attack on the 10th April despite having very few panzers immediately to hand.

It is unlikely that panzer crew casualties during Battleaxe were nil and were probably proportionately similar with those of Hohmann’s report. The operational panzer numbers after Battleaxe are substantially lower than those they began with and are not likely to be due to only mechanical problems unconnected with the impact of projectiles and shell fragments and blast.

The above comparison leaves me currently unable to accept Mark's delusional theory.

[MarkN]

The above comparison leaves me currently unable to accept Mark's delusional theory.

Jolly good for you. Always pleased to hear that somebody has gone around his own self-congratulatory loop.

You do realise that the entirety of your post is nothing more than a self-licking lollipop loop of pre-suppositions, don't you?

I mean, to "test" (as you like to do) your theories, all you have done is convince yourself again that your own pre-suppositions are valid by reusing those very same pre-suppositions. That's no "test", its a self-licking lollipop loop of pre-suppositions.

Let's assume a pantser is sitting in Pz.Regt.5 workshop. We have no idea why it is sitting there. We do not know what the damage itself is and how it occured. Was it from E/A or wear and tear or routine maintenance. We do not know the extent of the damage. We do not know the reason for the length of its stay in workshop. Is it because of massive structural damage from an enemy shell or the lack of a 50 pfennig-value widget no longer in stock in workshop stores which broke after going over a nasty bump in the desert.

You have stated the the point of your enquiry here is to try and establish what degree of damage was inflicted by British action during Op Battleaxe. A most admirable endeavor - albeit probably impossible. This confirms you do not know the state of the tanks in workshops.

Nevertheless, you produce a "test" that looks at another period in time and then include as many of your own pre-suppositions as possible to come up with a result that matches your overall pre-supposition and then superimpose it to prove your narrative.

According to a ME AFV Branch letter dated 2 June 1941, the "normal turn-round time for overhaul of tanks is Light 8.5 weeks, Cruiser 14 weeks". Nevertheless, you pre-suppose the Germans are so efficient that they can do similar in a matter of days. It was the same desert inflicting the same punishment on German pantsers as well as British pantsers. Remember the quote I put up earlier of the German tank crew stuck waiting in the middle of the desert for at least 4 days just to be recovered. After 4 days, they hadn't even got to the workshop, let alone the chariot be fixed and ready for action....

[Michael Kenny]

Am I the only one uneasy about the tone of this thread?

[ClintHardware]

test

Because of the lack of German detailed evidence the behavioural evidence and consequences become more important.

Your last point supports my reasons for comparing because purely mechanical problems are usually easier to evacuate and repair. Your last point adds weight to the doubt that can be cast upon the repeated assumptions made about Battleaxe outcomes during the last 75 years - thank you.

[Urmel]

Am I the only one uneasy about the tone of this thread?

No.