'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Post Reply
Ulater
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 09 Mar 2015, 20:36
Location: USA

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#16

Post by Ulater » 23 Feb 2018, 23:28

And the endless list of excuses trotted out to explain any German defeat/poor performance is trotted out. Admitting they were outfought is never to be faced.
Do continue with the strawmen.

Or better yet, provide evidence for truly extraordinary claim that there somehow was not a general fuel shortage. When there was, since the get go.

Im waiting.

Ok I admit that was a deliberate choice by me to use those words. Why? Because it is a standard term in translated German accounts when describing Allied soldiers under attack by them. I simply turn it around. What is the problem?
People in glass houses............
Such a panic stricken flight that more than a half of those "hundreds" of tanks were torched by their crews, and Operational research noted that great part of the vehicles were canibalised.

Special kind of stricken panic.


Congratulation on attacking a strawman and losing.

And this is wrong and modern-day German Army apologia to bs their way out of their losses by claiming.............. is correct because.......??????
Because its not bsing the way out of their losses, and two are entirely different.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#17

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Feb 2018, 23:44

Ulater wrote:
Or better yet, provide evidence for truly extraordinary claim that there somehow was not a general fuel shortage. When there was, since the get go.

Im waiting.
Wait no more.
My opening post:

If fuel shortages at the front line rather than in the rear (a very important distinction often overlooked) were the norm then obviously the effects of said shortages should be seen in all situations rather than overwhelmingly being seen during the panic-stricken flight when the broken Germans fled Normandy.


Ulater wrote:
Operational research noted that great part of the vehicles were canibalised.
Really?
Were can I see this 'cannibalised' report?
Ulater wrote: Congratulation on attacking a strawman and losing.
Losing so badly that you have to keep countering my posts.
Do you have the stamina to continue or.................will you run out of fuel!


Ulater
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 09 Mar 2015, 20:36
Location: USA

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#18

Post by Ulater » 24 Feb 2018, 00:08

Wait no more.
My opening post:

If fuel shortages at the front line rather than in the rear (a very important distinction often overlooked) were the norm then obviously the effects of said shortages should be seen in all situations rather than overwhelmingly being seen during the panic-stricken flight when the broken Germans fled Normandy.
There was a general shortage everywhere, I dont know how on earth are you separating a rear echelon shortage from frontal shortage.

And seeing that: "By D-day the Strategic Air Forces together with the Tactical Air Forces had so successfully performed their mission of disrupting enemy communications that tl,ere was a chronic shortage of locomotives and cars, repair facilities were inadequate, coal stocks were reduced to
a six days' supply, and 74 bridges and tunnels leading to the battle area were impassable. The communications cbaos thus produced had fatal effects upon the enemy's attempts at reinforcement after our landings."

One could argue if there was an effective connection between german rear and german frontline at all.
Really?
Were can I see this 'cannibalised' report?
In Montgomery's scientists. Contains all the information you need, and it meets the impossible threshold as well, as I quote: "Abandonment must often have come as a result of the extreme cognestion and disorganisation which prevailed during the retreat; traffic was totally blocked and petrol became scarce."

In other words, an absolutely non-controversial statement, or is Operational Research also wrong now?
Losing so badly that you have to keep countering my posts.
Do you have the stamina to continue or.................will you run out of fuel!
1. Yes, panic-stricken Germans set good half of their vehicles on fire and "took tyres off" as a normal practice from wheeled vehicles, and were salvaging many others.

2. Its a controversial thing to say that tanks run out of fuel, in a nation going on 4th year of fuel famine, and evidently losing majority of supply lines into the battlefield even before the actual battle.

Thats 0:2 against the strawman

Do you have the stamina to continue or.................will you run out of fuel!
Nah, feel free to post more fact-free statement and basically admitting to what ammounts to juvenile trolling.

I will be here.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#19

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Feb 2018, 00:36

Ulater wrote: There was a general shortage everywhere, I dont know how on earth are you separating a rear echelon shortage from frontal shortage.
Because front line units had absolute priority.
Ulater wrote: And seeing that: "By D-day the Strategic Air Forces together with the Tactical Air Forces had so successfully performed their mission of disrupting enemy communications that tl,ere was a chronic shortage of locomotives and cars, repair facilities were inadequate, coal stocks were reduced to
a six days' supply, and 74 bridges and tunnels leading to the battle area were impassable. The communications cbaos thus produced had fatal effects upon the enemy's attempts at reinforcement after our landings."
I believe that it is accepted that the rail disruption whilst severe never stopped the German ability to move its Panzer Divisions etc forward. Like the example of fuel I gave earlier the damage was mitigated by stripping out non-military movements. By dropping all other movements this allowed Military movements to continue.
Ulater wrote: One could argue if there was an effective connection between german rear and german frontline at all.
Given the hail of shot and shell fired at the Allies in Normandy I think you will struggle to show that the German offensive capability was severely curtailed before the rout in August. It was the destruction of the Units that was fatal not the restrictions on the supply lines.
Ulater wrote: In Montgomery's scientists. Contains all the information you need, and it meets the impossible threshold as well, as I quote: "Abandonment must often have come as a result of the extreme cognestion and disorganisation which prevailed during the retreat; traffic was totally blocked and petrol became scarce."

In other words, an absolutely non-controversial statement, or is Operational Research also wrong now?
I have all the relevant reports. Can you save me some time and give a page number for this comment so I can check the context.
Removing tyres is not cannibalisation. I will help you though. Check the upturned TII being inspected by Eisenhower in August. Clearly the final drives have been removed before it was blown up. That is a tank that was in a makeshift repair station. The fitters obviously used it for spares (cannibalised it) and then when the fleeing troops reached their position they blew up the immobile wreck and joined the panic-stricken throng.

Ulater wrote: 1. Yes, panic-stricken Germans set good half of their vehicles on fire and "took tyres off" as a normal practice from wheeled vehicles, and were salvaging many others.
How were they transporting these salvaged tyres? Surely the 'shortage of fuel' meant they had no vehicles to take them away?
Ulater wrote: 2. Its a controversial thing to say that tanks run out of fuel, in a nation going on 4th year of fuel famine, and evidently losing majority of supply lines into the battlefield even before the actual battle.
Yet they had enough fuel to transport a complete Army into Normandy. Did no one realise that moving these troops forward with no fuel to function when they got there was madness?
Was there no stockpile of fuel in France for the expected Allied invasion?

Ulater
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 09 Mar 2015, 20:36
Location: USA

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#20

Post by Ulater » 24 Feb 2018, 00:59

Because front line units had absolute priority.
And where were the frontline units getting their fuel from?
I believe that it is accepted that the rail disruption whilst severe never stopped the German ability to move its Panzer Divisions etc forward. Like the example of fuel I gave earlier the damage was mitigated by stripping out non-military movements. By dropping all other movements this allowed Military movements to continue.
It limited their artillery and operational range.
I have all the relevant reports. Can you save me some time and give a page number for this comment so I can check the context. .
Enemy Casualties in vehicles during the retreat from Normandy to Seine, Part. I - The pocket. 2. Results, part (b), (c), (d).

There are more mentions of vehicle salvage in that entire chapter.
How were they transporting these salvaged tyres? Surely the 'shortage of fuel' meant they had no vehicles to take them away?
Keep your strawmen to yourself.
Yet they had enough fuel to transport a complete Army into Normandy. Did no one realise that moving these troops forward with no fuel to function when they got there was madness?
Was there no stockpile of fuel in France for the expected Allied invasion?

They also had to move the supplies back over Seine when the front was approaching. With row-boats.

seppw
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 01:49
Location: Central Europe

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#21

Post by seppw » 24 Feb 2018, 01:31

Michael Kenny wrote:
seppw wrote: There's some circular reasoning going on in your brain.
I take that to mean that you also have no evidence for the 'lack of fuel claims?
Rainer Karlsch/Raymond G. Stokes: "Faktor Öl. Die Mineralölwirtschaft in Deutschland 1859 - 1974" is a good start, but there is more.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#22

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Feb 2018, 01:36

seppw wrote:
Michael Kenny wrote:
seppw wrote: There's some circular reasoning going on in your brain.
I take that to mean that you also have no evidence for the 'lack of fuel claims?
Rainer Karlsch/Raymond G. Stokes: "Faktor Öl. Die Mineralölwirtschaft in Deutschland 1859 - 1974" is a good start, but there is more.
I hope this book has details on the fuel levels in tanks thrown away by panic-stricken Germans in The Falaise Pocket in 1944-which is what I am after.
I presume that is what the book is about?

Ulater
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 09 Mar 2015, 20:36
Location: USA

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#23

Post by Ulater » 24 Feb 2018, 01:40

I hope this book has details on the fuel levels in tanks thrown away by panic-stricken Germans in The Falaise Pocket in 1944-which is what I am after.
I presume that is what the book is about?
I certainly doubt somebody wrote a book about your strawmen.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#24

Post by Yoozername » 24 Feb 2018, 02:18

I once threw a hand grenade 35 yards. If a 500 pound bomb went off 35 yards from me, I am reasonably sure it would have about 600 times the explosive. I would not want to stay in an area that attracted this sort of experience.

Sometimes gun crews leave their weapons and sometimes come back. Maybe happens to tank crews. Maybe they don't get a chance to come back.

Reports from most armies are assuming and I would not take their word for everything.
Were some AFV abandoned by either inexperienced crews or crews that had been fighting for weeks, I bet they were. Were some fought to the limits of human endurance... and made it 'back'....well, some did.

I don't see this thread getting to a point if the premise is tossed out as a starting fact.

Can anyone supply all these anecdotal 'ran out of gas' stories? Shouldn't the OP at least cite some?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#25

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Feb 2018, 04:33

Ulater wrote: and Operational research noted that great part of the vehicles were canibalised.
No. What they say on page 183 is:


The concentrations around the points B and C, (MRs, 9224 and 0626) were in for repair or had been stripped to provide spares for other vehicles.

This is 'B' &'C'
screenshot.2018-02-24.jpg
and the solid black dot means they are lorry/car/MC and listed as abandoned. There is also 2 tanks and 1 gun at B and one tank is described as 'damaged directly by air attack'.
The text makes it clear they were collection/repair locations and just happened to be on the roads that were being used for the retreat.
This is the areas B & C in 1947:

B
Ronfeugerai .....1947 B.jpg
C
Rabodanges  1947 ,.  , B.jpg

You also missed this on page 183:
One particular example was just outside of PUTANGES where
an armoured troop carrier abandoned in a somewhat conspicuous place with no petrol


There is no denying fuel was scarce or that some vehicles were unable to be refueled. What I say is that running out of fuel was never the cause of the defeat/the main cause of vehicle loss. It was the 'fruit' (for the Allies) of the hard-won victory.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#26

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Feb 2018, 04:47

Yoozername wrote:
Can anyone supply all these anecdotal 'ran out of gas' stories? Shouldn't the OP at least cite some?
I do not believe you have never heard the Falaise tank losses were mainly.nearly all due to lack of fuel/breakdown. This example (from an admittedly poor author) would be typical of those who believe in the Unber-panzer myth:

Anthony Tucker Jones, The Panther Tank. Hitler's T34 Killer

According Io British analysis, The two main reasons for the defeat of the Panther during the Second World War were being
abandoned and destroyed by the panzertruppen themselves. In other words they broke down, ran out of fuel or were damaged
and could not be recovered. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers Ieft on the Normandy battlefield during
August 1944 and constituted 80 per cent of all the Panthers Iost
.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#27

Post by Yoozername » 24 Feb 2018, 04:56

There you go. Any good authors?

(even that does not support what you are claiming)

seppw
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 01:49
Location: Central Europe

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#28

Post by seppw » 02 Mar 2018, 22:28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg

Here's a video explaining the whole situation very well. It's aimed at people without a lot of background knowledge and because it's a video reading comprehension is not important. So maybe even Kenny will get it. No problemo, pal! :thumbsup:

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#29

Post by Sheldrake » 03 Mar 2018, 00:42

Michael Kenny wrote:I am trying to find examples where German tanks 'ran out of fuel' whilst attacking in NWE. I know they had these problem when they broke and ran in panic in late August but are there any example where Units were stopping/losing tanks during an advance to combat?
If fuel shortages at the front line rather than in the rear (a very important distinction often overlooked) were the norm then obviously the effects of said shortages should be seen in all situations rather than overwhelmingly being seen during the panic-stricken flight when the broken Germans fled Normandy.
For example the OR report on a German column found around La Baleine in July 1944 found 8 Panthers, 2 Stug and a Pz IV scattered around the roads with all being in good working order apart from a couple with Rocket and AP strikes. Clearly in this location the Germans ran off leaving fully fueled/armed vehicles rather than turning to face and engage their pursuers.
Michael,

One obvious example is the advance column of the 2nd Panzer Division between Celles and Dinant caught by the British 29th Armoured Brigade and US 2nd Armoured Division. This was the furthermost point reached by the Germans in the Ardennes. The Germans had plenty enough fuel to mount the operation, but could not bring the fuel forward to where it was needed. In the Ardennes the roads were in poor condition, jammed with German military traffic and under air attack. Peiper was forced to abandon his tanks at la Gleizeratehr than try to breakout with them.

I am not wholly comfortable with the argument that only tanks with empty fuel in the attack counts as evidence of a fuel shortage constraining operations. Professional soldiers are not going to commit themselves to an attack without the fuel to complete the manoeuvre, any more than aircraft will take off without the fuel to reach their destination. That doesn't mean that shortages of fuel or ammunition aren't constraints. What it means is that otherwise effective operations might not take place.

The Germans were short of motor transport. The railway system had been wrecked by allied air power and the resistance. It was not feasible to use horse drawn transport for round trips to deports east of Paris. However, the Germans did not have a major fuel problem in the battle for Normandy, once in the battle area itself. The units based in France had enough fuel to reach the battlefront. The distances were short compared to the Eastern front or North Africa, and the fighting attritional. It wasn't too difficult to find enough fuel to top up the vehicles of one newly arrived formation - as long as the other ten panzer divisions weren't trying to move at the same time. Fuel only became a serious problem when the whole army tried to move - as happened in late July and August.

There was more call for ammunition than fuel. The allied CB operation was good, but themain reason the Germans artillery did not fire more was lack of ammunition.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.

#30

Post by Michael Kenny » 03 Mar 2018, 04:54

Sheldrake wrote:
Michael Kenny wrote:The Germans had plenty enough fuel to mount the operation, but could not bring the fuel forward to where it was needed.
I meant running out of fuel as in they used up all they had and there was none left to issue to the troops. Temporary shortages hit everyone but my case is that whilst the chaotic conditions of the retreat destroyed the supply line there was always enough petrol to keep the tanks moving-if they had not been crushed and sent fleeing back home

Post Reply

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