Classification of a wreck

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Ulater
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 21:27

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
10 Oct 2019 21:21
Hi,

It seems strange that Zetterling would say in that footnote that “long-term” items were sent to rear facilities but that from the numbers it seems some at least were repaired locally and returned to either operational or short term repair status. All very vague. Plenty of scope for statistical chicanery. 😄

Regards

Tom
It wasnt very consistent due to lack of spare parts and experts to fix the tank.

Thats why you go on a spectrum from condemning a Tiger for canibalisation due to minor mine damage you dont have parts to fix, to fixing a Tiger with ration bread, to aforementioned repair workshop that with 275 tons of spare parts managed to keep a nice turn-out of Tigers.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 1814
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 10 Oct 2019 21:39

No, not very consistent at all.

So, would the Werkstatt be regarded as a “rear facility” if we accept Zetterling’s terminology?

And was the scale of workshop facilities for the panzer battalions in a division in Normandy as generous as the scale required to keep around a dozen Tigers on the road (or on the steppes)?

Regards

Tom

Ulater
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 10 Oct 2019 21:54

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
10 Oct 2019 21:39
No, not very consistent at all.

So, would the Werkstatt be regarded as a “rear facility” if we accept Zetterling’s terminology?

And was the scale of workshop facilities for the panzer battalions in a division in Normandy as generous as the scale required to keep around a dozen Tigers on the road (or on the steppes)?

Regards

Tom
It was I-Gruppe or I-Trupp (wheeled and half-tracked vehicles) on company level. On battalion level there was another I-Gruppe for armored units to service the HQ vehicles. Tiger and Panther battalions had a much bigger I-Staffel attached to compensate for bigger vehicles. Then there was repair company with the workshop, which I think might be the "rear" Zetterling is reffering to, since that needed a rather big and fixed spot/facility to accomodate one tank workshop and 3 workshops for all the other vehicles in the tank division.

And thats a good question, given that:

Panzers in Normandy, Then and now, p. 6:

"Its integral means of logistic support gave a panzer regiment the appearance of being virtually self-supporting other than in river-crossing (when it was dependent on the divisional engineers battalion) but, in practice, this was not often the case. Service companies, for instance, were lacking in half the tank battalions at the outbreak of the battle, whilst half the panzer regiments were without a repair company."

I dont have data on whether they were in any way supplied or reinforced during the Normandy campaign, but Im sceptical.


Supply company differences for I and II abteilung:

Image
Image

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6010
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Oct 2019 21:58

Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 21:20


Seems to know exactly where the pages of the book speculating about how Brits did exactly the same thing as germans with delayed write-offs are.

This shows you have no idea how the Allied system worked.
Any tank sent away for repair was stricken from the Unit and was a total loss to the Unit. They also struck off tanks that they had no control over. That would be wrecks still on the battlefield/missing etc. Tanks sent for repair could be replaced if there were tanks available.
Once the tanks reached the repair station then it would, at some time. be inspected and the damage assessed, If it was considered too badly damaged it would be scrapped. If considered repairable it placed in a yard for when the work could be done.. However for the Allies this did not effect Unit total losses because a tank was considered a total loss when it was first sent for repair.
It was the workshop who chose which tank was actually scrapped. If it was knocked out in September but scrapped in December made no difference to the Unit write-off totals.
Thus there are two ways of counting Allied total losses.
A check of a Unit tank count which will show (for example) 10 tanks struck from the record.
This is the preferred method of anyone who wants to validate German kill claims but is incorrect in that they are counting every tank that needs repairs expected to take more than 24 hours and not confirmed total losses.

The scrapped tank numbers Zetterling is using are the aggregated reports of the repair Units. These cover longer time periods and are counts of the damaged tanks that were actually declared scrap. These counts are done over longer time periods and it is rarely possible to match up the scrap totals with battles or engagements.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5576
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Terry Duncan » 11 Oct 2019 00:31

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 18:33
Contender wrote:
10 Oct 2019 18:14
manipulation is not some silly new thing or "conspiracy theory" it existed since the beginning of film..............

This is the link to where I got the film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 1zm1RbtX6o


I think someone warned the Illuminati you were on to them and they are destroying the evidence.


Again- I am afraid I have no time at all for crazy conspiracy theories and have no more to say on the subject.
Michael. This is a dead link, and therefore hardly a useful source for anything. Can you please post a link to the relevant film for people to see? The forum rules do require evidence when requested and dead links (or Rick Rolls) do not conform to that. If people cannot view the evidence you say exists they are likely to suggest things like conspiricy theories as it is impossible to see if the evidence you say exists is not manipulated in any way. Whilst you are providing a very nice collection of pictures of destroyed tanks, please try to also conform to the rules or the thread may have to be closed.

Terry Duncan

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Yoozername » 11 Oct 2019 00:49

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 13:24
Stiltzkin wrote:
10 Oct 2019 08:05
Photomaterial can be useful, but has its limitations,
Sometimes photos can trump all other sources.

See this thread
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=230187
Sometimes photos also get you misled, but other posters find new information. A misplayed McGuffin showed that the Germans were doing something besides parking 'Wrecks'....

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=241359&start=15
Last edited by Yoozername on 11 Oct 2019 01:33, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6010
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 00:57

Terry Duncan wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:31


Michael. This is a dead link, and therefore hardly a useful source for anything.
That is where I got it and I gave my link. I did not know it was gone until asked for the link and it was news to me as well.The owner obviously took it down. That was my link and my source. I then gave a screenshot that showed cameraman's name. He is a known Canadian Combat cameraman and a simple google gives links to other clips about him and clips from the film I used.
At first thought the person asking the question was serious but the increasing strangeness in his replies made me change my mind and I want nothing more to do with him.
I was under the impression that no one was forced to do another's research. That giving a link to the source was considered a valid response. That the source has been removed is outside my control.
I had no idea what a 'rick roll' was and had to look it up and the suggestion the footage ins faked or manipulated is completely and utterly absurd.
Dale Gervais, film conservator with Library & Archives Canada must be in on it because he narrates the clip about the discovery of the film.
Screenshot_69.jpg
This is Dale in his day job

https://canadianfilmandphotounit.ca/author/pipndale/

and a moments digging will give you a link to the new host for the film which has been updated (6th June 2019) to mention the death of the cameraman.





I think this old post is relevant:
David Thompson wrote:
17 Oct 2016 05:48
Michael Kenny -- You wrote:
I think a request for the exact Russian wording/description of the classes of destroyed/damaged tanks is far from an unreasonable request. Asking if they can read Russian is also relevant.
We don't require that level of sourcing here; the source originally given ("Russian document TsAMO f38 on11371 d16 l11,13") is sufficient for Interested readers to find out more on their own. As the rules state, AHF operates as an information exchange, not a research service.

Is that still board policy or has it changed?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1015
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Stiltzkin » 11 Oct 2019 08:07

Which means that this miniscule share of a miniscule group of vehicles that needed specialised repair were actually scrapped because they were deemed unrepairable.
Indeed, the rate of irrecoverables fluctuated around 15%, with a smaller number being sent away to the zone of interior, this however heavily depended on battlefield control.
The Soviets usually sent away their vehicles to be dismantled, since they were often corrupted beyond repair, this resulted in a lot of scrapping, at a irrecoverable ratio of about 40-50%.
The flaw in the theory not only lies in the logistical effort of the undertakings, with the difficulties that arise to which they render it implausible, but actually the statistical error, drawing conclusions based on a small population sample. Those are actually the tools utilized by conspiracy theorists (it is a form of projection, being guilty for the same he often accuses others of), they cling on to oddities and carve-out these events, to support their view in which this scanty evidence serves as a basis. The small population does not even suffice to run a statistical analysis (which they often cannot provide anyway).
Pictures are snapshots of singled out events, you would need thousands of them in order for this to be representative. Occassionally you may find inconsistencies some scholars have overlooked, but considering that WW2 history (tank warfare in particular) is often studied by laymen, this frequently leads to false conclusions featured in countless books (or youtube). You either have to reject or accept the hypothesis. I think it is more of a mental illness. :D
Results

Depending on the characteristics of the conspiracy theory employed on the survey, we find that political orientations and conspiratorial thinking provide the most analytical leverage in predicting individual conspiracy beliefs. Furthermore, paranormal beliefs were more predictive than previous literature suggests, while psychological biases demonstrated very limited predictive utility.
Conclusions

The psychological antecedents of conspiracy beliefs used to explain those beliefs vary considerably by the stimuli or events at the center of a given conspiracy theory. Therefore, disproportionately favoring one type of conspiracy theory on one's survey may result in inferences about conspiracy theorists that do not translate across studies. Furthermore, though we are not yet capable of fully determining who conspiracy theorists are, conspiratorial thinking, paranormal beliefs, and political orientations are more predictive of particular conspiracy beliefs than other attitudes, predispositions, and orientations.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... ssqu.12711

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6010
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 09:21

Stiltzkin wrote:
11 Oct 2019 08:07

Pictures are snapshots of singled out events, you would need thousands of them in order for this to be representative. Occassionally you may find inconsistencies some scholars have overlooked,


Or in the case of Wittmann and VIllers Bocage you can expose outright fabrication and lies. The photos alone proved Michael Wittmann falsely claimed tank kills in his post-battle interview.

Ulater
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 09 Mar 2015 19:36
Location: Slovakia

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Ulater » 11 Oct 2019 14:37

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 21:58
Ulater wrote:
10 Oct 2019 21:20


Seems to know exactly where the pages of the book speculating about how Brits did exactly the same thing as germans with delayed write-offs are.

This shows you have no idea how the Allied system worked.
Any tank sent away for repair was stricken from the Unit and was a total loss to the Unit. They also struck off tanks that they had no control over. That would be wrecks still on the battlefield/missing etc. Tanks sent for repair could be replaced if there were tanks available.
Once the tanks reached the repair station then it would, at some time. be inspected and the damage assessed, If it was considered too badly damaged it would be scrapped. If considered repairable it placed in a yard for when the work could be done.. However for the Allies this did not effect Unit total losses because a tank was considered a total loss when it was first sent for repair.
It was the workshop who chose which tank was actually scrapped. If it was knocked out in September but scrapped in December made no difference to the Unit write-off totals.
Thus there are two ways of counting Allied total losses.
A check of a Unit tank count which will show (for example) 10 tanks struck from the record.
This is the preferred method of anyone who wants to validate German kill claims but is incorrect in that they are counting every tank that needs repairs expected to take more than 24 hours and not confirmed total losses.

The scrapped tank numbers Zetterling is using are the aggregated reports of the repair Units. These cover longer time periods and are counts of the damaged tanks that were actually declared scrap. These counts are done over longer time periods and it is rarely possible to match up the scrap totals with battles or engagements.
And what exactly does this have to do with what Zetterling said?

Allies wrote off a back-log of vehicles after the operation.
Germans wrote off a back-log of vehicles after the operation.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6010
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 16:37

Ulater wrote:
11 Oct 2019 14:37


And what exactly does this have to do with what Zetterling said?

Allies wrote off a back-log of vehicles after the operation.
Germans wrote off a back-log of vehicles after the operation.
If you are now saying only the delayed Allied total is the real number of their write-offs (which it actually is) then you are admitting all the accounts in German Unit histories that say anything like '''all the Allied losses are confirmed by the Unit War Diary'' which is written the same day as the events it describes are incorrect and are using an inflated total for Allied total losses.
If you accept that then we are on the same page. Welcome to the real world.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 14:57
Location: Pa

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Contender » 11 Oct 2019 17:45

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57
until asked for the link and it was news to me as well.
I pointed this out immediately after you posted the link (check post times) I am right underneath you. I also brought up the fact that the link was not working a few times afterwards if you recall.
Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57
serious but the increasing strangeness in his replies
Strangeness (subjective) does not mean my original question wasn’t serious, I would like a closer look at the footage. Unfortunately you misunderstood my point about "manipulation” which was prompted by your post about "casting doubt" & "you thought wrong" remember my earlier post about taking nothing on faith. Right now I know nothing about that Panther other than what you can see in the first still that you posted…(a wreck with people in front of it).
Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57
made me change my mind and I want nothing more to do with him.
You seemed to change your mind when I pointed out the link was dead. In any case freedom of association of course is your prerogative although I have nothing against you as a poster, I quite enjoy your posts, & would honestly like to count you as one of my forum friends or at least if that’s not possible keep are correspondences friendly in nature.
Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57
Is outside my control.
Not at all it is the responsibility of the poster to make sure the his link works when he posts otherwise a poster can claim whatever he wants and link to a random dead source.
Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57
I had no idea what a 'rick roll
My attempt at bringing much needed levity to the thread & a reference to your link being unexpectedly something else.
Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57

https://canadianfilmandphotounit.ca/author/pipndale/ and a moments digging

Perhaps I am missing something the only June 6th 2019 posting is not the footage in question its quite unrelated. If you mean this was the last update to the website... I don't see how this would be relevant as along as the link works. Does the footage at least have a name? As you say this gentleman was a cameraman in WWII surely he took many many hours of footage?
Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57
]
Is that still board policy or has it changed?
He referred to a document which has a name & number. Your footage could be called anything or be buried anywhere within thousands of hours of WWII footage.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6010
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Oct 2019 18:30

Contender wrote:
11 Oct 2019 17:45

I pointed this out.........................
I don't want to be rude but I repeat I want nothing at all to do with any conspiracy/altered/faked film or photo converstations. It is not my world and I refuse to have anything to do with it. I do not put people on 'ignore' so the best I can do is make it absolutely crystal clear that I will not enter into any dialogue about it at all. Take that as my final word on the matter.
Contender wrote:
11 Oct 2019 17:45
Perhaps I am missing something the only June 6th 2019 posting is not the footage in question, it’s content is quite unrelated… Other postings on that site are far older. Does the footage at least have name?
You are indeed missing something. The footage is named in the screen-grab of the cameraman. It is in the bottom LH corner. I am used to 3 other posters in this thread posting disingenuous distortions of my text and thus am wary if I get a reply that seems to be in the same vein.

This was my reply:
Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 00:57


This is Dale in his day job

https://canadianfilmandphotounit.ca/author/pipndale/

and a moments digging will give you a link to the new host for the film which has been updated (6th June 2019) to mention the death of the cameraman.
I also gave you a screen-grab with the cameraman's name-Charles Beddoe
This is the screen you go to and the cameraman is named in the first scroll of the screen. When you click on the arrowed link the new page has a direct link to the film and the Panther footage is at 8m:55s.

It really is that simple.
Screenshot_84_stitch.jpg
Please keep in mind there will be no response from me on any follow-up query/comment about it being faked/altered/photoshopped footage. None whatsoever.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 1891
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Yoozername » 11 Oct 2019 19:04

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Oct 2019 16:40

Any tank unfit for action is a wreck.
I think that is the main issue here is a misuse of a word, that is, a disingenuous use of that word. By your definition, a tank that falls out on the march to battle because of a faulty fuel pump, is a 'wreck'. A tank with a leaking recoil cylinder is a 'wreck'. A tank waiting on parts, is a wreck.

Wreck has a connotation more in line with the common definition.

noun
the destruction of a ship at sea; a shipwreck.
"the survivors of the wreck"

Similar:
destruction
sinking
wrecking
devastation
ruination
ruin
demolition
smashing
shattering
disintegration

verb
cause the destruction of (a ship) by sinking or breaking up.
"he was drowned when his ship was wrecked"
Last edited by Yoozername on 11 Oct 2019 19:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Contender
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 11 Jan 2008 14:57
Location: Pa

Re: Classification of a wreck

Post by Contender » 11 Oct 2019 19:05

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Oct 2019 18:30
Rude...I also gave you a screen-grab with the cameraman's name-Charles Beddoe
link to the film and the Panther footage is at 8m:55s.
there will be no response from me on any follow-up query/comment about it being faked/altered/photoshopped footage. None whatsoever.
I don't mind rudeness as it is the way of the internet. It doesn't mean much if the gentleman's job is to take footage & I have no reference as to where in his archive it might reside. I shall take a look at the arrow-ed section (you remembered that I am blind :lol: ) look in a little bit & will post about it later . If I find it ( I can't atm.... juggling a few things on my end) I shall webm the pertinent section for everyone here (assuming there are no copyrights although...for discussion purposes might fall under free use). As far as "altered footage" as stated you misunderstood my position.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”