Because this all is just a thinly veiled attempt at trolling and having completely lost his argument, he is now trying to post things he thinks will "trigger" us.How does this support what you are saying at all? Those tanks were bombed, hence the dirt thrown up all over and over-turned condition and missing bogies and suspension??? It was a preliminary bombardment? Do you think they had fuel or not? And how can that matter to your argument?
'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
Edit: @ MK
What are you saying now?
What are you saying now?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
Yep I 'lost' and you 'won'. That is why you need to keep telling everyone you 'won'.Ulater wrote:
Because this all is just a thinly veiled attempt at trolling and having completely lost his argument, he is now trying to post things he thinks will "trigger" us.
https://youtu.be/3ES_Q93snrQ?t=4s
-
- Member
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
I guess this thread 'Ran out of Fuel'.
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
High level of irony from somebody posting completely irrelevant things and so far 3 times modifying his hypothesis in order to establish an impossible threshold of evidence. While attacking a strawman, that does not exist.Yep I 'lost' and you 'won'. That is why you need to keep telling everyone you 'won'.
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
Hello,
I think what Michael is saying is quite straight forward. Many, undamaged, German tanks were abandoned by their crews for various reasons including out of fuel, broken down, bogged down and sometimes just to escape. For 70 years this has been used by many to show that Allied tanks could not destroy German tanks as they were mostly non combat losses. Michaels point is that they the losses are caused by the Allies smashing through the German lines and are therefore combat losses caused by the Allies. A tank bogged down and unable to be recovered because a bunch of Sherman's are coming round the corner are lost to Allied actions. A tank abandoned, full of fuel, because rockets are landing all around is lost due to Allied action. As Michael says a wreck is a wreck is a wreck, it doesn't matter if the wreck is caused by a sabot round from a firefly or from a flare dropped through the turret by a German crewman, stuck in a traffic jam, hurrying to escape the Allied spearheads these all should be attributed to Allied actions.
Thanks
Mark.
I think what Michael is saying is quite straight forward. Many, undamaged, German tanks were abandoned by their crews for various reasons including out of fuel, broken down, bogged down and sometimes just to escape. For 70 years this has been used by many to show that Allied tanks could not destroy German tanks as they were mostly non combat losses. Michaels point is that they the losses are caused by the Allies smashing through the German lines and are therefore combat losses caused by the Allies. A tank bogged down and unable to be recovered because a bunch of Sherman's are coming round the corner are lost to Allied actions. A tank abandoned, full of fuel, because rockets are landing all around is lost due to Allied action. As Michael says a wreck is a wreck is a wreck, it doesn't matter if the wreck is caused by a sabot round from a firefly or from a flare dropped through the turret by a German crewman, stuck in a traffic jam, hurrying to escape the Allied spearheads these all should be attributed to Allied actions.
Thanks
Mark.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
That allied tanks could not destroy german tanks is the exact sentiment I am getting from individuals who are trying to zealously and desperately lump combat and non-combat casualties together.Hello,
I think what Michael is saying is quite straight forward. Many, undamaged, German tanks were abandoned by their crews for various reasons including out of fuel, broken down, bogged down and sometimes just to escape. For 70 years this has been used by many to show that Allied tanks could not destroy German tanks as they were mostly non combat losses. Michaels point is that they the losses are caused by the Allies smashing through the German lines and are therefore combat losses caused by the Allies. A tank bogged down and unable to be recovered because a bunch of Sherman's are coming round the corner are lost to Allied actions. A tank abandoned, full of fuel, because rockets are landing all around is lost due to Allied action. As Michael says a wreck is a wreck is a wreck, it doesn't matter if the wreck is caused by a sabot round from a firefly or from a flare dropped through the turret by a German crewman, stuck in a traffic jam, hurrying to escape the Allied spearheads these all should be attributed to Allied actions.
Thanks
Mark.
And I would bet that even the text posted from Jones's book was written with a broader context of reliability, and not combat record.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
If you think he said that...then you think he said that!As Michael says a wreck is a wreck is a wreck, it doesn't matter if the wreck is caused by a sabot round from a firefly or from a flare dropped through the turret by a German crewman, stuck in a traffic jam, hurrying to escape the Allied spearheads these all should be attributed to Allied actions.
I guess it's like politics. Believe whatever you want. Mix things up till it makes sense. But, just don't insult people's intelligence too much.
Did the British tankers ever just bail out? I saw some Germans driving a nice looking Firefly....
-
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: 02 Mar 2018, 21:49
- Location: Land of the Dragon
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
I did write a tongue in cheek reply yesterday, but does not seem to have been posted.
The only time this particular issue of fuel arises is in the film Battle of the Bulge.
It reminds me of the film Patton, where Patton's 'adversary' in the film is Montgomery. These two individuals never held the same level of command during WW2 when it was actually decisive or important. Does not stop Hollywood creating fiction that sticks.
The only time this particular issue of fuel arises is in the film Battle of the Bulge.
It reminds me of the film Patton, where Patton's 'adversary' in the film is Montgomery. These two individuals never held the same level of command during WW2 when it was actually decisive or important. Does not stop Hollywood creating fiction that sticks.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
As opposed to desperately trying to reduce German tank losses so as to explain away the crushing defeat..Ulater wrote: individuals who are trying to zealously and desperately lump combat and non-combat casualties together.
Look even harder and you will find 12th SS lost a Cromwell just outside Cheux in June 1944.Yoozername wrote: Did the British tankers ever just bail out? I saw some Germans driving a nice looking Firefly....
I wonder where they got that from?
-
- Member
- Posts: 2619
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
Odd
I suppose one could ponder how many British tankers tossed over in the early battles with the panzers in Normandy? Tanks losses high and tankers low? Since this thread was built on some perceived notion...is that an equally good notion? Was them tanks lend-lease or lend-toss????
I suppose one could ponder how many British tankers tossed over in the early battles with the panzers in Normandy? Tanks losses high and tankers low? Since this thread was built on some perceived notion...is that an equally good notion? Was them tanks lend-lease or lend-toss????
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
I think people are diliberatly missing the point here. Of course British tankers abandoned intact vehicles, every side did. The point is that the British would onsider this a combat loss as the result was caused by enemy action whereas the Germans and their supporters continually try to reduce the number of tanks destroyed by the Allies to try and prove some sort of superiority.
No, we are not lumping combat and on combat losses togethef, they sre all combat losses. Dictionary definition of combat losses is losses suffered during battle. Now I am quite sure this includes airstrikes and the persuit phase of the battle. Lets face it if Allied tanks couldn't destroy German tanks why were they running from them? How did the Allies manage to rout an entire German army.
Thanks
Mark.
No, we are not lumping combat and on combat losses togethef, they sre all combat losses. Dictionary definition of combat losses is losses suffered during battle. Now I am quite sure this includes airstrikes and the persuit phase of the battle. Lets face it if Allied tanks couldn't destroy German tanks why were they running from them? How did the Allies manage to rout an entire German army.
Thanks
Mark.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
Any Commonwealth tank that is not under the control of the unit(be it whereabouts unknown/knocked out/abandoned/broken down/ashtrays full and need emptying etc) is struck from the rolls. No arguments and no quibbles just struck off.MarkF617 wrote:I think people are diliberatly missing the point here. Of course British tankers abandoned intact vehicles, every side did. The point is that the British would onsider this a combat loss as the result was caused by enemy action whereas the Germans and their supporters continually try to reduce the number of tanks destroyed by the Allies to try and prove some sort of superiority.
These 'Last Light' numbers are used by (poorly informed) historians to work out tank losses.
One day starry-eyed admirer writes book/article on 12th SS.
Notes 12th SS Ace X claims 15 Shermans on a day in June.
Checks tank states for Unit engaged by 12th SS that day.
Finds the Unit struck off 19 tanks.
Immediately claims all those tanks as knocked out in combat/confirmed kills by ace X and inserts footnote sourcing Units tank numbers and writes incorrectly 'losses confirmed by Unit records'
Whilst the bald statement 'losses confirmed by Unit records' is 100% true the morphing of those losses into 'confirmed kills is 100% not 'true'.
That distinction never registers in the mind of all the starry-eyed SS admirers who (might) read that footnote.
I hope the above is clear enough in pointing out the massive error of starry-eyed 12th SS 'historian'
The problem is not that the WW2 Germans hid losses but rather the latter day fans who can not accept the smouldering heaps of scrap (and Europe's razor blades for the next 40 years) that lined the roads out of France could be defeated by the humble M4.
They are the ones who invented the 'Non Combat Loss' category. Its a bogus classification well past its sell-by date.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8267
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
Yoozername wrote:Odd
I suppose one could ponder how many British tankers tossed over in the early battles with the panzers in Normandy? Tanks losses high and tankers low? Since this thread was built on some perceived notion...is that an equally good notion? Was them tanks lend-lease or lend-toss????
Instead of pondering you could read my posts on British and Canadian losses. I am sure that I would be accused anti-German bias if any of the complainants had a scrap of evidence that I ignore Allied losses.
Got myself well covered here.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... &p=2065217&
http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showt ... hp?t=28282
Re: 'Ran out of fuel' excuse for defeat.
You keep using your strawmen and absolute statements. So far you have not delivered evidence on either.As opposed to desperately trying to reduce German tank losses so as to explain away the crushing defeat
No actually, british would not consider it a combat loss.The point is that the British would onsider this a combat loss as the result was caused by enemy action whereas the Germans and their supporters continually try to reduce the number of tanks destroyed by the Allies to try and prove some sort of superiority.
I do not know if you noticed, but the studies are from british and american institutions, not wehrmacht quartermasters or german unit diaries.
Somebody once tried to sell me that bridge with soviet tanks.Any Commonwealth tank that is not under the control of the unit(be it whereabouts unknown/knocked out/abandoned/broken down/ashtrays full and need emptying etc) is struck from the rolls. No arguments and no quibbles just struck off.
It wasnt true.