Roman Töppel: 'The War, One Great Adventure: The Writer and "Historian" Franz Kurowski'

[Christianmunich]

You are again dodging the one question that shows you know the Tigers to be the likely culprit.

If the Tigers didn't knock out those tanks who else did?

You are now again talking about AP casualties which is a strawmen, nobody claimed all tanks were killed by the Tigers. The 29th Brigade losses exceed Tiger claims. The fact that you say stuff like "this has be explained to you before" is also bad faith because at no point did I claim all tank losses were caused by AP. Pure strawmen.

You use a crew casualty/tank casualty ratio if there is no hard info on actual combat losses.

I agree, but we have the losses you guys just know the losses validate the Tiger claims so you are now saying the actual reported tank losses are not really the tank losses and we should go from personnel casualties. This is desperation. Also the casualty approach is wrongly conducted by you guys and I could proof it but I don't want to feed the Gish Gallop. I will soon publish the analysis for the Sherman sample examined by the British in 1945 which would also show that your arguments about casualties are straight up false. But again, irrelevant here. Sherman crews ditched their tanks unharmed all the time when they came under fire. Crew casualties are strongly correlated with closes to enemy infantry. You say it yourself the tanks got sniped on long range, perfect conditions to get out and move to your lines.

You are only concerned with data that will reinforce your agenda.

That is a lie because no data that is bad for "my point" was introduced by anybody here. You, on the other hand, are proven to have withheld the 29th Brigades casualties. No offense Micheal but you are literally accusing me of what you are known to have done verifiably. You also know that I am the exact opposite to you in this regard because I actually inquired to you for information of the Epsom mystery Tigers, the moment I saw discrepancies in the Tiger loss data I researched to find out where those Tigers are. Nobody as established any data in the 5:1 which I ommitted. Zero. You on the other hand will exclude any evidence that doesn't help you. Sorry it is how it is.

Also your post is further Gish Gallop.

Who knocked out the 29th AB tanks? You wanna claim those were non combat losses? Go ahead claim it, and then I ask for proof and you will offer none. That is why neither you nore Mr Anderson are even attempting to offer an explanation for the losses. You know the Tigers are the most likely explanation. At the moment yours and Mr Andersons line of argument is to dismiss already reported and established loss data, both of you are now suggesting that the tank states are wrong, without evidence of course Your approach is truly unscientific.

[Michael Kenny]

If the Tigers didn't knock out those tanks who else did?

Don't know, don't care, not my hobby horse.
You are the one making a big deal about it because you know Fey's claim is bogus and have latched onto the next highest claim on the kill-list to propagate your '5:1' myth.
I am surprised to see you denying here you are trying to validate the 5:1 myth because you make no secret of the fact on Reddit.

both of you are now suggesting that the tank states are wrong, without evidence of course[/b] Your approach is truly unscientific.

You have been given advice on what the numbers mean.
They do not mean what you think they mean.
You chose to ignore this advice.
That is your decision.
It is an unscientific decision.

[Christianmunich]

Well, then we have settled it you are now admitting you have no other explanation for the 29th AB tank losses. You dismiss the Tigers which literally claimed those tanks in this area but have by your own admission no evidence for this whatsoever. You can't explain how those tanks all got lost but are sure it didn't happen due to the Tigers which were reported in the diaries and claimed the kills.

At least you are honest about not having a proper explanation for the losses instead of dodging the question. Kudos to you.

Late edit

I am surprised to see you denying here you are trying to validate the 5:1 myth because you make no secret of the fact on Reddit.

I didn't deny anything. But you have the order wrong. I was facinated by Tigers and started researching, after my first more serious hobby research and analysis on loss data I set out to analyse all major Tiger combat in Normandy, at this point in time my general opinion was that Tigers did inflict roughly 5:1 losses in write offs. After being mostly done, which was already way back I saw the results and then I was saying 5:1 is true in Normandy. going out to prove something you have no good evidence for is unscientific. I noticed the Tiger exchange ratios and went out to study it further and now it is my "mission" to show that those who claim wrong stuff without evidence are helpless once evidence gets in. This here is the perfect example. Before I came people likely accepted your version, where you withheld the AB losses now fact bases discussions has brought us to the point that the most prominent opponent of the 5:1 admits to not having any explanation for tank losses which were directly claimed by Tigers besides the Tigers.

I didn't set out to prove the 5:1 before I knew it to be "true". I said out to study it. As you know my research is rocksolid. That is why nobody refuted it. Nobody.

For transparency sake in my 5:1 behemoth I gave 14 knock outs ( important distinction those are not destroyed tanks but only "casualties" ) to the Tigers for the 6th and 7th. As you see I nearly discarded half of the claims. For the 7th I have given 12. In my post there I also said the following:

This is no conservative view but I don't see the evidence against the claims.

In many other battles I was more conservative but the "high" number of 12 is mostly due the same problem you encountered now, there is no good other explanation for those losses. None. Which also goes to show my objective, I was searching like crazy for a different explanation but found none, that is why I knew you guys will find none either. Should be pointed out that I also consider the possibility the 1st company was somehow in the mix on those days because the unit documentation is erratic.

Btw you seem to be thinking you can rattle me by posting my "in persona" comments on reddit. I am proud of my title as Fieldmarshall wehrboo. I am the only person who is objectively judging tank battles and not withholding data. I was never shown to have misrepresented data or omitted important data. The fact that people call me a boo for being right and dunking on people who can't reason straight just goes to show how biased the average "Sherman fan" is. I dismantled the SWS and now we will deliver some unbiased knowledge to the objective readers on the AH. You would rather invoke some random mystery unit for the cause of a tank loss than the Tiger that was literally there and claimed them. I disagree with your approach.

[Richard Anderson]

My mistake, should have looked better. It's the only unit I know which reports casualties under this format (but tell me what other examples there are).

6th Guards did, but just for their first day of battle. Otherwise, no, none of the brigades during the Normandy Campaign did.

[Richard Anderson]

I am aware of general forum etiquette and that accusing people of "lying" is rarely a good thing but I am not sure what the correct cause of action is but you are straight up lying now. Just some hours ago you listed 17 Shermans as knocked out and now you say there is no evidence that something significant happened. What the hell? How is one supposed to discuss this fairly if people simply will ignore already established evidence because they are unable to objectively discuss such things? The Brigade reports 17 Shermans ko'ed but nothing significant happened? Lmao.... Seriously this is so unprofessional.

Dear me, but you really are getting worked up over your simple lack of understanding of what the tank states do and do not tell us. They do tell us how many tanks were fit and how many tanks were unfit as of 2200 hours of the day in question. They do not tell us what the cause of the lack of fitness was, they only tell us if the estimated repair time is under 24 hours or over 24 hours. Yes, the later included tanks "knocked out". That was because the latter category were to be evacuated for repair or dropped from the unit by the next day.

Because of that, there is simply no way to know whether or not a tank listed as "unfit, not repairable in 24 hours/KO'ed" was a mechanical loss or a battle loss. Here, since I have said it before a number of times, but you haven't understood, I'll repeat it with some emphasis added:

There is simply NO WAY to know whether or not a tank listed as "unfit, not repairable in 24 hours/KO'ed" was a MECHANICAL LOSS or a battle loss.

The only recourse then is other unit reports and historical narratives, which occasionally give additional details on cause of loss, and OR reports, which are unfortunately typically few and far between in the necessary details - as we can see in this case. Is it POSSIBLE that two Tigers on Hill 242 managed to brew up 23 tanks in two different instances, in two different directions, on two different units without more mention than 5 tanks being KO'ed in A&C Squadron of the 2nd Fife and Forfar, and without inflicting significant personnel casualties on the occupants? Sure. Is it likely given the evidence? No. Nor is there any way to prove it either way.

You may not like that simple fact, since it does not agree with your pre-selected narrative, but that truly is not my problem and the only dishonesty being displayed here is your unwillingness to understand and acknowledge that simple fact.

[Richard Anderson]

You are again dodging the one question that shows you know the Tigers to be the likely culprit.

If the Tigers didn't knock out those tanks who else did?

You are now again talking about AP casualties which is a strawmen, nobody claimed all tanks were killed by the Tigers. The 29th Brigade losses exceed Tiger claims. The fact that you say stuff like "this has be explained to you before" is also bad faith because at no point did I claim all tank losses were caused by AP. Pure strawmen.

No, the only strawman is your failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is you simply ignoring what the Tank States do and do not tell us.

[Christianmunich]

Yeah, I never claimed anything of what you said. I am fully aware that different reason for losses are possible. This is fully irrelevant here and just a Red Herring, the 29th AB reported 25 tanks non operational 23 of those Shermans and 17 of those were considered knocked out. Nobody said every single one of those were knocked out by Tigers. Nobody did this. It is a Red Herring.

If believe a substantial amount of those knocked out tanks became casualties by some other reason that say it out load and provide evidence.

Everybody here knows that in time of combat with little movement the major course for losses is obviously combat. You are lowkey trying to imply that a good number of those tanks could have been mechanical problems or what not. But you are not really saying it out loud because you know I would nail you on this claim.

Mr Anderson just tell us what in your opinion was the cause of those losses. You obviously don't believe it were the Tigers which claimed them in this area so please tell us your interpreation of the events.

Is it POSSIBLE that two Tigers on Hill 242 managed to brew up 23 tanks in two different instances, in two different directions, on two different units without more mention than 5 tanks being KO'ed in A&C Squadron of the 2nd Fife and Forfar, and without inflicting significant personnel casualties on the occupants? Sure. Is it likely given the evidence?

I want to draw attention to this strawmen. Nobody here said the Tigers knocked out 23. Nobody

I personally have said in other forums I believe 12 casualties inflicted by Tigers on the entire day in the entire area is a reasonable estimate. And I stand with this. Stop strawmanning, stop gish galloping, tell us what knocked out those Shermans.

[Richard Anderson]

Well, then we have settled it you are now admitting you have no other explanation for the 29th AB tank losses. You dismiss the Tigers which literally claimed those tanks in this area but have by your own admission no evidence for this whatsoever. You can't explain how those tanks all got lost but are sure it didn't happen due to the Tigers which were reported in the diaries and claimed the kills.

By the exact same logic, then all the Tigers absent from the Panzerlage were somehow lost to Allied tanks, because every Allied tanker making a kill claim claimed a Tiger, and you have no other explanation for it.

See how that works.

[Christianmunich]

Well, then we have settled it you are now admitting you have no other explanation for the 29th AB tank losses. You dismiss the Tigers which literally claimed those tanks in this area but have by your own admission no evidence for this whatsoever. You can't explain how those tanks all got lost but are sure it didn't happen due to the Tigers which were reported in the diaries and claimed the kills.

By the exact same logic, then all the Tigers absent from the Panzerlage were somehow lost to Allied tanks, because every Allied tanker making a kill claim claimed a Tiger, and you have no other explanation for it.

See how that works.

Well give me a proper example and I will easily debunk it and tell you what really happened. I will actually do what you avoid, I will say what is based on evidence the most likely scenario. You still haven't told the folks here what knocked out the 29th AB tanks. Did they all fall in a ditch, or break down or what? Don't leave us hanging. The Tigers obviously didn't do it despite claiming them.

[Richard Anderson]

Yeah, I never claimed anything of what you said. I am fully aware that different reason for losses are possible. This is fully irrelevant here and just a Red Herring, the 29th AB reported 25 tanks non operational 23 of those Shermans and 17 of those were considered knocked out.

For the last time. The categorization of losses in the Tank States are:

1. Fit
2. Unfit, but repairable in less than 24 hours
3. Unfit, not repairable in less than 24 hours and knocked out tanks

STOP LYING.

[Christianmunich]

Nothing of what I said is incorrect. Why are you so agitated. Just tell us what knocked out the 29th AB tanks. Can't be that difficult, you are certain the Tigers which claimed those tanks didn't do it, you must have good evidence for a different scenario. Please tell us.

[Richard Anderson]

Nothing of what I said is incorrect. Why are you so agitated. Just tell us what knocked out the 29th AB tanks. Can't be that difficult, you are certain the Tigers which claimed those tanks didn't do it, you must have good evidence for a different scenario. Please tell us.

I did not say you were incorrect, I said you were lying. Now you are trolling, just like a good fanbois does. Buh-Bye!

[Christianmunich]

I see you say "Buh-Bye" instead of answering a simple question that was asked 15 times now.

What caused the 29th AB casualties if not the Tigers. You know the answer refutes the case you are trying to make so you do anything to avoid answering this.

Let me recap my arguments again to finish this since nobody wants to add further evidence:

* Tigers claimed 12+ tanks ( depending on source ) on the 7th August in the Chenedolle area

* The British unit in question was the 29th AB, which had only two Sherman regiment in action this day.

* The 29th AB reported 23 Shermans as casualties

* Both Sherman units operated in the vicinity of the Tigers and reported combat with Tigers, one unit specifically mentioned losing 5 tanks to those Tigers. The war diaries do not mention any further losses, so the rest of the losses is unaccounted but the majority have to have happened in those two units.

* German kill claims for this area are known with the exception of 10th SS on th 6th. German overall claims are below the listed casualties and likely casualties of the units in this sector, mainly the 11th Armoured and 6th Guards tan brigade and M10 units like the 91st royal AT regiment.

* No German unit had direct claims on the 7th against the 29th AB besides the Tigers

* Tiger tanks claimed roughly half of all 9th SS claims in this sector and did not fight with the 6th Guards or their accompanying M10s around Estry, nearly the entire Tigers claims have to fall on the 11th AD

* Since German claims align with overall British losses to a very reasonable degree and the British losses by area are rather well known we can conclude there is no evidence for any other German unit getting enough kills on the 29th AB on the 7th to significantly contradict the Tigers claims.

* There is zero evidence for another German unit claiming tanks in this area on this day, there is zero evidence for British losses being caused by anything else, THere is zero evidence the British unit had substantial amount of non combat losses.

* Even if some British tanks fell to other German unit and or became casualties for other reasons they still would not drastically contradict the Tiger claims which are fully covered by British losses.

I want to recap Mr Anderson line of argumentation

* He believes the Tigers did not do it

* He will not tell us what caused the British losses, he will not even risk a guess, he only is sure the Tigers didn't do it.

[Michael Kenny]

* There is zero evidence for another German unit claiming tanks in this area on this day, there is zero evidence for British losses being caused by anything else, German unit and or became casualties for other reasons they still would not drastically contradict the Tiger claims which are fully covered by British losses.

The 23rd Hussars history mentions this for Aug 6th :

the enemy began to creep round the left flank. As darkness was
falling they reached the top of the hill and began to 'bazooka' the
tanks.

And I checked Egger's award citation. It credits him and two other vehicles (3 Tigers in total) with 18 kills.
12? 16? 18?
any advance on 18?

[Christianmunich]

But what you reference is from the 6th August NOT the 7th

And I checked Egger's award citation. It credits him and two other vehicles (3 Tigers in total) with 18 kills.
12? 16? 18?
any advance on 18?

18 seems unlikely, you already know my evaluation, I have considered 12 tanks as likely estimation. I assume you are now abandoning the position that the Tiger action is made up and start haggling for the actual number? For what its worth I generally always subtract some claims even for highly accurate claims. As you have read in my reddit posts I consider the German forces to belong to the most accurate claimers and the US and USSR as the biggest overclaimers. But everything approaching double digits should be considered to include at least moderate overclaim always.

Do I interpret your position correctly that you believe Eggers inflicted the majority of the casualties?