The most long-winded and pathetic attempt to obfuscate the scale of German losses I have seen for a long time. You simply refuse to accept reality and try and sneak in 'alternate facts' to lower the number of German write-offs.stg 44 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2021 15:20What he is referring to is tanks needing longer term repairs getting left behind in retreats and being written off later; things is they weren't actually destroyed in the initial combat operation where they were damaged, as you claimed, but were waiting to be repaired for whatever reason (I listed several above) and only actually became losses when they were left behind later on. So it would be accurate to say they weren't combat losses in that sense of being destroyed in combat, just abandoned when they couldn't be evacuated; similar thing happened at Korsun during the attacks to help the encircled forces breakout, there were a bunch of mechanical breakdowns in the mud and lack of fuel and recovery vehicles prevented their recovery so they were blown up. They weren't combat losses in the sense of being lost due to combat per se even though they were lost in the course of combat operations, but they were lost when they had to be left behind or blown up.
This sentence is a beauty:
They weren't combat losses in the sense of being lost due to combat per se even though they were lost in the course of combat operations
So they were then.....,
but now they are not.....
even though they were....
at one time......
just not now..........
Anyway off you go again, round and round the garden................
There is a simple term that could help you avoid this mental gymnastics. It is 'tank casualty'. I know you believe German casualties are further sub-divided into 'combat loss/mechanical breakdown/lack of spares/ran out of fuel etc but that is just trying to avoid facing reality.stg 44 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2021 15:20In terms of total lost on both sides as a result of a specific operation, in this case Citadel, total write offs on both sides are accurate, but that isn't the full story. Damaged was another category, but most of those were repaired and returned to service. The long terms repairs later written off due to retreats would more accurately be counted as losses in other operations, as those later operations is when they became write offs, though technically they wouldn't be combat losses.
No. The issue is people like you who totally ignore the number of German tank casualties and then obsessively winnow the written-off figures to exclude a good number of destroyed tanks as 'non combat losses..
