Really? Wow!ClintHardware wrote: Because of the lack of German detailed evidence the behavioural evidence and consequences become more important.
Really?ClintHardware wrote: 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.
My last paragraph showed that the British system took 8.5 weeks to overhaul a Light tank and 14 weeks a Cruiser tank. It provides no indication of whether the work being done was routine, repairing battle damage or mechanical failure. It was a simple timeframe for 'turn-round'. How does that support your notion that "purely mechanical problems are usually easier to evacuate and repair"?
It also pointed to a contempory quote by a German Panzertruppe about how long he had to wait for recovery for a mechanical problem. How does that "add weight to the doubt that can be cast upon the repeated assumptions made about Battleaxe outcomes during the last 75 years"?
Here ...
... you seem to be arguing that the number of tanks and the timeframe in workshop is an indicator of the type of problem that has put them into the workshop. Your theory being that: many tanks + long stay = lots of battle damage.ClintHardware wrote: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.
Here ...
... you say it clearly.ClintHardware wrote: ... because purely mechanical problems are usually easier to evacuate and repair.
This is completely absurd!
Evidence 1:
The image posted in the other thread of a 1RTR A9 Cruiser Tank abandoned on the escarpment out of Derna. Probably been there for 5 weeks or so. Mechanical breakdown as it was being evacuted back to Tobruk then Egypt. So, if "purely mechanical problems are usually easier to evacuate and repair", somebody forgot to tell the British! 5 weeks and it hasn't even made it to the workshop = definite combat damage!
Evidence 2:
There were 135 Cruiser tanks (just considering Cruiser tanks here to keep the calculation and presentation manageable) allocated to 7th Armd Div on 6 December 1940 for the start of Op Compass. Of those, 41 were in RAOC workshop. 41 out of 135??? Them Italians must have been giving Tommy a real pasteing since June!!!! Clever Tommy fooled all them historians for 75 years by only writing one off the books!
Evidence 3:
Op Compass begins. Many of the 41 in RAOC workshop are sent forward over the coming days and weeks to add to the 94 which started off. Nevertheless, by the time Beda Fomm is over at the beginning of February, there are only a handful left standing.
Now, wind the clock forward to the Census data dated 1 March 1941. Extract from that data the 123 cruisers that arrived with 2nd Armd Div, and you see that the total surviving tanks from 7th Armd Div is 133 - if you believe the numbers! (I also subtracted 2 that previously were held by RAC School). Only two losses the whole campaign! Wow! Tommy really is clever at fooling the historians. But where are they all? Extrapolating from the 12 April data supplied by O'Moore Creagh, 82 are in RAOC workshop and 51 are allegedly serviceable with units. But they're not. 11 are with 1RTR, the rest are missing!
So we have, from 133 tanks of 7th Armd Div:
- 78 in workshop u/s,
- 15 serviceable (4 at RAOC and 11 with 1 RTR) and
- 40 off with the fairies.
78 in workshop after 8 weeks must mean that the Italians really, really, REALLY gave the Tommy a pounding during Op Compass. If we add the missing 40, thus 118 out of 133 not fit, Op Compass must be reclassified as a complete and utter DISASTER!
That is what your thought process is coming to.
- Many tanks + long stay = lots of battle damage
- 57 out of 161 + 2 weeks = British inflicted massive damage on Pz.Regt.5 - hidden from history for 75 years!
- 118 out of 133 + 8 weeks = military disaster for 7th Armoured Division - hidden from history for 75 years!
Do you want to rewrite the history of the Op Compass campaign too?
There is more and more evidence I can produce to show you that the British had more tanks in workshop and for longer periods of time than the Germans - and those visits were down purely to mechanical failure having not even gone into battle. But, according to your 'theory', that number and timeframe is an indicator of significant battle damage.