'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.

#76

Post by Ulater » 05 Mar 2018, 09:42

Well let me put it this way. How many documents have you posted in this thread?

Other than your opinion what have you added to the discussion?
That attacking german tank units run out of fuel, which seeing how you were both extremely fast to find the document by yourself, and how extremely fast you were to write it off on a supposition that was contrary to what was the reality, you already knew.

And the sampling of losses which included "run out of fuel" collumn, as per your request to provide such,which you were yet again extremely fast to comfirm, and which you wrote off as insufficient evidence for yet un-disclosed reason.

Also the OR research, where you failed, for some reason, to cite according to given refferences, which I guess is because there were words included like congestion, traffic, petrol and scarce.

100% for sure.

What happened to the first Tiger Wittmann was in when he drove towards Villers? The so called 'Sowa's Tiger'?

It went down manuevering towards the allies (or away from them), so good thing it does not matter.

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

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

#77

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Mar 2018, 10:08

As the question has been 'dodged' I will have to answer it myself.

Q: What happened to the first Tiger Wittmann was in when he drove towards Villers? The so called 'Sowa's Tiger'?

A: It broke down.


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

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

#78

Post by Ulater » 05 Mar 2018, 10:12

As the question has been 'dodged' I will have to answer it myself.

Q: What happened to the first Tiger Wittmann was in when he drove towards Villers? The so called 'Sowa's Tiger'?

A: It broke down.
You writing about dodging made me giggle.

It broke down manuevering against allies, so allies disabled it, it is a combat loss, because non-combat losses either do not matter or do not exist.

That is your logic.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

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

#79

Post by MarkF617 » 05 Mar 2018, 10:26

I am not saying German tanks do not break down, everyone's tanks break down and when they do they are towed away and repaired and thus are not lost to whichever side they belong (although as Michael says if the repair will take over 24 hours a British unit will strike it off their books). What is in dispute is when a repairable, bogged down or out of fuel tank that could be recovered is instead abandoned and left in order to escape the enemy, this then has been abandoned because of enemy action.

Mark.


Edited once to correct bad typing.
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.

Nick the Noodle
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 02 Mar 2018, 21:49
Location: Land of the Dragon

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

#80

Post by Nick the Noodle » 05 Mar 2018, 11:20

Gorque wrote:
Nick the Noodle wrote: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.
Hi Nick!

Welcome to AHF. :thumbsup:
Thanks.

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

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

#81

Post by Ulater » 05 Mar 2018, 16:26

I am not saying German tanks do not break down, everyone's tanks break down and when they do they are towed away and repaired and thus are not lost to whichever side they belong (although as Michael says if the repair will take over 24 hours a British unit will strike it off their books). What is in dispute is when a repairable, bogged down or out of fuel tank that could be recovered is instead abandoned and left in order to escape the enemy, this then has been abandoned because of enemy action.

Mark.
That it broke down is just a pathetic excuse for the briliant combat conduct of British at Villers-Bocage that actually destroyed it.

Nick the Noodle
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 02 Mar 2018, 21:49
Location: Land of the Dragon

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

#82

Post by Nick the Noodle » 06 Mar 2018, 01:43

The only time that this issue occurs in the West 44 is during the Hollywood film The Battle of the Bulge.

The East is different. Barbarossa et al failed due to lack of logistical support for the sharp end.

Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-1942 by Robert Forczyk is a good starting point on why the Heer failed in 1941, well before any snow fell.

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

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

#83

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 Mar 2018, 07:21

Ulater wrote:
It broke down manuevering against allies, so allies disabled it, it is a combat loss, because non-combat losses either do not matter or do not exist.

The tank ('222') was fixed. Here it is the next day towing Tiger '231' which was the Tiger that was behind Wittmann and was hit and knocked out as it tried to follow him into the town. One hit on the drivers visor killed him. The 'lone Tiger' claim for Wittmann is wrong.
SS101 2.Kp. Tiger 222 - N175 V-B June 14 1944 #2b.jpg
Here is 231 resting where it was finally destroyed, Bourguébus in July. Note the strike mark still visible on the drivers visor.
SS101 2.Kp. Tiger 231 KO'd near Bourguébus July 1944.jpg

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#84

Post by Sid Guttridge » 06 Mar 2018, 19:52

Hi Guys,

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the pre-WWII Flower Wars gave the Germans practical experience in mechanized logistics that their rivals lacked.

In particular, during the occupation of Austria in 1938 the road to Vienna was littered with broken down German armoured vehicles.

The Germans learnt from this and improved their mechanized support services before war broke out in earnest at the end of 1939.

The French lacked this experience and suffered similar problems on the field of battle in 1940, when it was too late to rectify.

In April 1941 the British lost two entire regiments of tanks to a breakdown in logistics in Greece. I think that out of 98(?) tanks sent, only one was lost in combat. The rest they destroyed themselves.

Cheers,

Sid

User avatar
eindhoven
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 18:54

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

#85

Post by eindhoven » 07 Mar 2018, 00:58

Michael,

There is no need to respond to posts that have nothing to do with your supposition. Of course the VB 'lone tiger' Wittmann myth is just that, complete BS, but being proof of 'running out of fuel during an attack', your initial question post 1, page 1, it is not. Just stick to your guns, stay subjective, and find the data to prove your point. I for one am interested in fact.

In 'OMAHA BEACHHEAD - (6 June-13 June 1944) by the Center of Military History United States Army' : "On 10 June, the advance elements of the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division bogged down at St. Lo for lack of fuel, and an engineer battalion had the be rushed to the Carentan area."

In other words 17th SS could advance against the Allies no further and were stranded in and around the River Vire when they ran out of fuel. On July 18th, 1944, St.-Lô fell to the Americans. The Americans then basically mopped up or killed what was left after that with all the pictures of large surrendering masses of the 'elite' SS and FJ being proof in the pudding of what lack of mobility did to the remaining 6 German Divisions in that area. Lack of fuel was the major contributing factor and that can be stated as fact without diminishing the fighting prowess of the Allies or intoning that it's just a German excuse for defeat. This is especially true when no less than 7 German communiques on 9th June from 7th Army to German High Command stress the critical fuel shortage affecting units being able to counter the Allies. This obviously affected the ability of German units to be combat effective or even to engage in mobile combat. 17th SS was essentially reduced to static defenses having had no other choice.

An interesting corollary, the Americans in this sector also ran out of fuel or had to wait for fuel to continue their advance and attacks.

Regards,
Eindhoven

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

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

#86

Post by Ulater » 07 Mar 2018, 01:19

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.
Mr. Kenny already rejected that fuel shortage on and off the battlefields that was a factor for german army since the Anschluss was a factor for german army in Normandy. So I am not sure what is the point anymore.

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

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

#87

Post by Yoozername » 07 Mar 2018, 03:44

eindhoven wrote:Michael,

There is no need to respond to posts that have nothing to do with your supposition. Of course the VB 'lone tiger' Wittmann myth is just that, complete BS, but being proof of 'running out of fuel during an attack', your initial question post 1, page 1, it is not. Just stick to your guns, stay subjective, and find the data to prove your point. I for one am interested in fact.

In 'OMAHA BEACHHEAD - (6 June-13 June 1944) by the Center of Military History United States Army' : "On 10 June, the advance elements of the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division bogged down at St. Lo for lack of fuel, and an engineer battalion had the be rushed to the Carentan area."

In other words 17th SS could advance against the Allies no further and were stranded in and around the River Vire when they ran out of fuel. On July 18th, 1944, St.-Lô fell to the Americans. The Americans then basically mopped up or killed what was left after that with all the pictures of large surrendering masses of the 'elite' SS and FJ being proof in the pudding of what lack of mobility did to the remaining 6 German Divisions in that area. Lack of fuel was the major contributing factor and that can be stated as fact without diminishing the fighting prowess of the Allies or intoning that it's just a German excuse for defeat. This is especially true when no less than 7 German communiques on 9th June from 7th Army to German High Command stress the critical fuel shortage affecting units being able to counter the Allies. This obviously affected the ability of German units to be combat effective or even to engage in mobile combat. 17th SS was essentially reduced to static defenses having had no other choice.

An interesting corollary, the Americans in this sector also ran out of fuel or had to wait for fuel to continue their advance and attacks.

Regards,
Eindhoven
Thanks. I read something like that also. But, you are disproving his point.

His point is that there was not really a lack of fuel, that the Nazis surrendered or abandoned AFV for less than honorable reasons. Hence the 'excuse for defeat'. He posted a report that really had more to do with airpower against an army that had been battered for a number of weeks...

But, he might chime in and actually state his point now.

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

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

#88

Post by Michael Kenny » 07 Mar 2018, 04:40

Yoozername wrote:
His point is that there was not really a lack of fuel, that the Nazis surrendered or abandoned AFV for less than honorable reasons. Hence the 'excuse for defeat'. He posted a report that really had more to do with airpower against an army that had been battered for a number of weeks...

I say simply that it is false to claim all/most of the German tanks 'abandoned' were abandoned because they ran out of fuel and/or broke down. The La Baleine report clearly shows fully fueled and armed Panthers were thrown away. I say that being short of fuel because the Allies have smashed your unit to pieces and your rear-echelon has ran away and left you without fuel is not the same as running out of fuel because you have no fuel to distribute. Looking at the maps of where vehicles were found it is clear than many piled up at choke points and thus did not 'run out of fuel' and could not continue. Rather they came to an obstacle they could not cross and then threw away the vehicles. Whilst the report mentions some vehicles without fuel it also clearly mentions others that were fully fueled and intact . It also says that inspection of vehicles fuel tanks were limited by the fear of booby traps and that some had full tanks and some nearly empty tanks with a bias to the latter.

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

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

#89

Post by Ulater » 07 Mar 2018, 10:23

I say simply that it is false to claim all/most of the German tanks 'abandoned' were abandoned because they ran out of fuel and/or broke down.
And back to strawmen we go.

Yet to see some kind of evidence of overarching conspiracy where somebody is claiming that german tanks oopsied themselves out of working order and fuel exclusive of allied interference.
The La Baleine report clearly shows fully fueled and armed Panthers were thrown away.
Does it now?
I say that being short of fuel because the Allies have smashed your unit to pieces and your rear-echelon has ran away and left you without fuel is not the same as running out of fuel because you have no fuel to distribute.

They were short on fuel because they were short on fuel before the invasion even started.

Looking at the maps of where vehicles were found it is clear than many piled up at choke points and thus did not 'run out of fuel' and could not continue. Rather they came to an obstacle they could not cross and then threw away the vehicles.

"Clear that many piled up at choke points" = distribution closer to Seine than to Fallaise, and dispersion rather than concentration at chokepoints.

"many piled up at choke points and thus did not 'run out of fuel' and could not continue" - OR themselves state that congestion and the resultant scarcity of fuel "must" have often resulted in abandonment.

"then threw away the vehicles" - That is why they were set on fire most often than not, because they threw away their vehicles. Im really sensing an agenda here.
Whilst the report mentions some vehicles without fuel it also clearly mentions others that were fully fueled and intact . It also says that inspection of vehicles fuel tanks were limited by the fear of booby traps and that some had full tanks and some nearly empty tanks with a bias to the latter.
"Some" vehicles out of 500 tanks and assault guns had full tanks. Thats nice to know.

And the evidence you need was not even created because of the fear of booby traps.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

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

#90

Post by MarkF617 » 07 Mar 2018, 11:39

Ulater said:
"then threw away the vehicles" - That is why they were set on fire most often than not, because they threw away their vehicles.
Simple question: Why were they set on fire then left abandoned? Why did the crews not wait for the congestion to ease, fuel to arrive, or for a tow (as required)?

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.

Post Reply

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