The British late war tank casualty survey wo 205/1165 a data dump

[Michael Kenny]

Sorry Kenny your data sample was shot down and proven to be hogwash. Leaving the basic math issues aside, we might want to start focusing on the Briitish sample again.

That means you know you can not discredit the numbers.

Did you not say you had a book on your head that could show the numbers were wrong?
This:

I knew your data is incorrect from the top of my head because I read Hubert Meyers book..............

And this:

I already without checking the data know it is wrong because I read Hubert Meyers book...........

If you are having problems accessing Meyer's book and you meant it was on Google Books preview (rather than the top of your head)and you have used up your free viewing allowance I can help you out. Tell me what page in Meyer shows 'your data is incorrect ' and I will scan and post it for you. If you turn down this offer of help then the obvious conclusion is that you were lying when you claimed 'the data know it is wrong because I read Hubert Meyers book '
Your own words best describe you:

you again made outlandish claims and when pressed for evidence you responded with an empty post.

[Christianmunich]

Sorry Kenny your data sample was shot down and proven to be hogwash. Leaving the basic math issues aside, we might want to start focusing on the Briitish sample again.

That means you know you can not discredit the numbers.

I not only discredited the numbers I made a mockery out of them, I showed how casualty samples include soldiers who became casualty outside the tank which infamously let you do forget basic math rules.

The data you presented is hogwash, I demonstrated this by comparing them to the 3rd RTR.

Did you not say you had a book on your head that could show the numbers were wrong?

Indeed. Hubert Meyers book shows how you sampled outside of combat casualties, which is just one of many mistakes that explains why the numbers are soo drastically incorrect. I already debunked your sample in the prior posts, no need to grab the book and show even more mistakes.

The 5th RTR shows nearly twice the casualty rate compared to the 3rd RTR provided by me. Your sampling is hogwash, and attempting to discredit the British casualty survey with it does not require comment from me.

Kenny you just forget how division works, why are we still discussing this and not the subject matter?

[Richard Anderson]

Mr Troll is making a mockery of something for sure...I keep feeling like I am witnessing C.M. Kornbluth's novella come to life when I read Mr Troll's...sorry, Mr Munich's posts.

[Richard Anderson]

Mr Anderson you again made outlandish claims and when pressed for evidence you responded with an empty post.

No. sorry Mr Troll, I made no claim, but I did challenge you to provide evidence for your outlandish claims, to whit:

You claimed that Harkness and Wright completed the "single best-conducted survey".

How do you know that when you obviously are unaware of other surveys?
Why was their earlier survey work deficient?
Why is that postwar survey the "single best-conducted survey", but other wartime and post-war surveys are not?

Show us the survey that is as detailed as the British sample. A simple request for proof. Prove your claim Mr Anderons, for once just prove your claim. I knew your post like many others was not based in evidence so I directly asked you to prove it and here we are. No proof.

Oh, so it is details that define the "single best-conducted survey"? Unfortunately, as has been pointed out a number of times, the "details" were concerned with the medical aspect of armored warfare and not the tank bits, which has already led you down the garden path.

Does the fact that it is only a small sample - in numbers and temporality - not count against it?
Does the fact that it does not include any late-war Sherman tanks not count against it?
Does the fact that it is a postwar compilation not count against it?

Now if you wanted to describe it as the "best-conducted survey of personnel losses in tanks by the British RAMC that postwar examined a small sample of tanks engaged in the last Commonwealth campaign of the war" then you might have gotten away with it. Might, since its just so much fun watching you circle the drain.

[Christianmunich]

Mr Anderson just prove your claims. When you knowingly used wrong loss documents, that were discredited by most recent historians, I asked you for proof, you provided none. This here is just the same again, you can't come into all the threads making strong claims without any evidence to back them up.

Show us the other samples.

I would like to quote the forum rules:

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

I said there is no other survey giving as many relevant data, I even cited the other samples. No other sample comes closes. You butch in and claim I am wrong.

Provide the evidence. I have given a comprehensive compilation of the wo 205/1165 you have done zilch, like in so many other threads. Just adhere to the rules and prove your claims Mr Anderson. Pages over pages of valuable evidence. You have shown nothing and only displayed disruptive behaviour which is clearly discouraged by the rules of the forum.

Show us the other sample, show the pictures of impacts, the documentation of vectors and casualties. Show us the data. Provide proof for your grande claims just once.

[Michael Kenny]

I not only discredited the numbers I made a mockery out of them, I showed how casualty samples include soldiers who became casualty outside the tank which infamously let you do forget basic math rules.

No you didn't. Overactive imagination again?

Hubert Meyers book shows how you sampled outside of combat casualties, which is just one of many mistakes that explains why the numbers are soo drastically incorrect. I already debunked your sample in the prior posts, no need to grab the book and show even more mistakes.

I make no bones about this. You are lying.
You have the perfect oppurtunity to 'prove' me wrong and you pass?
There is no such explanation in Meyer's 12th SS History.
You made it up and this is the reason why you refuse to even give a page number from Meyer.

This is how you use a book as a reference:

Page 59 of the hardback (section 1.5.3 if you have the paperback) where the the Panthers attack Norrey.
7 Panthers KO, 35 men of which 15 are killed. Sources given.

I believe that to be one of the best confirmations of the survey that found 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated. Can you work out the KIA-per-Panther ratio for me?

[Michael Kenny]

I would like to quote the forum rules:

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim.

Good. Now will you do as you demand others do and source this claim

I already without checking the data know it is wrong because I read Hubert Meyers book,

Why do you run away from your claim?

[Christianmunich]

I already provided the data showing your methodology is hogwash. Here it is again:

wompwomp.jpg

Two regiments and their data, in the way you compiled it. Two totally different ratios. Your numbers/methodology are hogwash, please don't try to compare them to the hard work of actual researchers like the wo 205/1165. Your data sets are incorrectly compiled and no value can be obtained from them. You include non combat casualties to your "tank ratios" like you call them.

[David Thompson]

This thread is locked, for obvious reasons.