'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.

#91

Post by Ulater » 07 Mar 2018, 11:55

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.
Because of lack of servicable bridges, and a very rational thoughts of not staying in places that could be transformed into huge firestorms like the traffic jam of 700 vehicles in Rouen.

Very opposite of stricken-panic™.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

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

#92

Post by MarkF617 » 07 Mar 2018, 11:58

So due to enemy actions then?

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.


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

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

#93

Post by Ulater » 07 Mar 2018, 12:03

So due to enemy actions then?
No, not in the sense our agenda-driven friend here is proposing.

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

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

#94

Post by Sid Guttridge » 08 Mar 2018, 14:49

Hi Guys,

Running out of fuel is not some sort of uncontrollable act of God or Nature.

"Running out of fuel" is not a legitimate excuse under any circumstances.

Either one's own side has screwed up, or correct enemy action has contrived these circumstances.

Cheers,

Sid.

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

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

#95

Post by seppw » 09 Mar 2018, 19:38

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Guys,

Running out of fuel is not some sort of uncontrollable act of God or Nature.

"Running out of fuel" is not a legitimate excuse under any circumstances.

Either one's own side has screwed up, or correct enemy action has contrived these circumstances.

Cheers,

Sid.
If theres little to no oil anywhere near you territory, just get your magic wand out and make some, or choose to have useful allies and let the US babysit you.
British oil & petrolium sources:
Image

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

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

#96

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 Mar 2018, 20:45

I think there is some confusion between 'running out of fuel' completely:

as in there is no more fuel anywhere in Germany. Every last drop has been consumed

and 'running out of fuel' at the front line :

as in the supplies to front line units had been disrupted by enemy action (designed just to do that) and there is fuel if it could be brought forward.

Hope that clears things up.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

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

#97

Post by MarkF617 » 11 Mar 2018, 00:03

Seppw said:

[quote]If theres little to no oil anywhere near you territory, just get your magic wand out and make some, or choose to have useful allies and let the US babysit you./quote]

Availability of resources and allies is something that should be taken into consideration before starting a war of conquest.

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.

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

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

#98

Post by Ulater » 11 Mar 2018, 14:25

I still do not understand what is being discussed here.


1. This is Mr. Kenny's thread:

His theory:

a.) Fuel shortage is a pathetic excuse for the "poor performance" of german units in Normandy. As he later states, his "stricken-panic"™ was used because it is used in accounts involving allied retreats.

b.) He basically rejects that Germans had shortages of fuel within the Army Group defending Normandy itself (proved wrong), let alone the strategic lack of it.

He was also provided ample evidence on units running out of fuel while attacking, and statistics that include "running out of fuel".So, It would not be unfair to extrapolate from this that Mr. Kenny is comparing ground force performance versus ground force performance.

Let me note that OR research itself, roughly paraphrasing, is claiming that large part of abandoned german AFVs in the reatreat area could be ascribed to air action.

So again I ask, what is the theory here?

A.) The rather extraordinary claim that Allied ground force were directly responsible for these roughly 500 tank and SPG losses, I guess by being solely responsible for things like disabling the previously mentioned 47 bridges and tunnels, destroying supply depots, and attacking the HJ and Lehr as they were moving towards the front.

B.) Poor performance. Since I can only guess again, which poor performance? The low effectivity of retreating german forces with their few thousand small arms and on-board weapons against the huge interdiction operation that was going on over their head, or the poor performance of the non-existent Luftwaffe against RAF and USAAF in trying to cover the german retreat?

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

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

#99

Post by critical mass » 11 Mar 2018, 15:02

It´s a question of loss categorization terminology. It´s my understanding that all those abandoned AFV should be counted in the
category of operational losses because they couldn´t be recovered and therefore were ultimately lost for the german war effort.
Even while a majority of them was not directly disabled by enemy gunfire, they should be counted as operational losses.
In a wider perspective, its´a demonstration of how important battlefield posession is in highly dynamic maneuvering warfare for vehicle recovery and of how disadvantageous it is to be the defender in mobile operations. This can have significant ramifications in how one would assess losses generally, and loss-related battlefield performances in particular.

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

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

#100

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Mar 2018, 15:06

Ulater wrote:

1. This is Mr. Kenny's thread:
No. Its an open forum anyone can post how they like. I make no claim of ownership
Ulater wrote:
As he later states, his "stricken-panic"™ was used because it is used in accounts involving allied retreats.
Its a common term in German accounts. Used all the time. The fact that you are upset when it is used back is very revealing.

Ulater wrote: b.) He basically rejects that Germans had shortages of fuel within the Army Group defending Normandy itself (proved wrong), let alone the strategic lack of it.
[
I fail to see how my many clarifications have not yet registered.
There was enough fuel in Normandy to keep front line units mobile.
This would be done by denying fuel to rear-area activity. Thus whilst there were fuel shortages there was never a complete lack of any fuel.
The distribution system was destroyed. It did not break down because of a German resupply miscalculation. It broke down because the Allies smashed the means to deliver all the fuel available. Thus it was a direct act of the Allies that reduced the amount of fuel.The fact that some people whine about this being a form of cheating that denies them their mythical One-on-one fight between a Sherman and a Tiger in an open field is no concern of mine. Those same Tigers that 'ran out of fuel as they bolted back to Germany had the option to turn around and have their 'fair fight' but they decided it was better to run for the Rhine rather than fight.
Ulater wrote:He was also provided ample evidence on units running out of fuel while attacking,
Ample? One incident where a Division spearhead outran its supply trucks and had to wait until they caught up. It also mentions US Unit running out of fuel but I see no one is claiming the US was 'short of petrol'. Indeed during the panic-stricken German retreat many Allied Units outran their fuel and had to halt. Entire Allied Divisions were stripped of all their wheeled transport and fuel allocation to keep the foward Allied Divisions in the race east.


Ulater wrote: Let me note that OR research itself, roughly paraphrasing, is claiming that large part of abandoned german AFVs in the reatreat area could be ascribed to air action.
This is amusing. For decades the apologists for the German defeat have been denying 'Air Power' had any real effect on the ground battle. Yet now when it suits suddenly air power is 'decisive'.
Ulater wrote: So again I ask, what is the theory here?
So again, see my second reply in this post.

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

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

#101

Post by Ulater » 11 Mar 2018, 15:24

It´s my understanding that all those abandoned AFV should be counted in the
category of operational losses because they couldn´t be recovered and therefore were ultimately lost for the german war effort.
Yes, that is the understanding.

However, there seems to be some kind of notion to make operational losses into combat losses.

No. Its an open forum anyone can post how they like. I make no claim of ownership
Cool, we are now in the territory of contrarianism just for the sake of contrarianism.
Its a common term in German accounts. Used all the time. The fact that you are upset when it is used back is very revealing.
Bla, bla, bla.

As I said, do keep dealing in strawmen instead of evidence, it suits me.
I fail to see how my many clarifications have not yet registered.
There was enough fuel in Normandy to keep front line units mobile.
This would be done by denying fuel to rear-area activity. Thus whilst there were fuel shortages there was never a complete lack of any fuel.
The distribution system was destroyed. It did not break down because of a German resupply miscalculation. It broke down because the Allies smashed the means to deliver all the fuel available. Thus it was a direct act of the Allies that reduced the amount of fuel.The fact that some people whine about this being a form of cheating that denies them their mythical One-on-one fight between a Sherman and a Tiger in an open field is no concern of mine. Those same Tigers that 'ran out of fuel as they bolted back to Germany had the option to turn around and have their 'fair fight' but they decided it was better to run for the Rhine rather than fight.
Another strawman, and you can adress me directly. No need to be afraid.

Yes, there was enough fuel, except for HJ, 17th SS and according to german high command, just for some examples.


Ample? One incident where a Division spearhead outran its supply trucks and had to wait until they caught up. It also mentions US Unit running out of fuel but I see no one is claiming the US was 'short of petrol'. Indeed during the panic-stricken German retreat many Allied Units outran their fuel and had to halt. Entire Allied Divisions were stripped of all their wheeled transport and fuel allocation to keep the foward Allied Divisions in the race east.
"The Allied invasion of 6 June 1944 found the individual companies of the “Hitlerjugend” Panther battalion billeted to villages around Le Neuborg, France and the battalion staff company in the town itself.26 On being ordered to the invasion front, the fastest way the leadership of the 12th ss Panzer Regiment could get its Panthers there was by driving them. The sixty-six tanks of this unit covered a distance of 140 kilometres to reach the Normandy combat zone, travelling from 6 to 8 June 1944 under incessant air attack. "

The outrunning happened only in your head.

Refer to the previous for more.

This is amusing. For decades the apologists for the German defeat have been denying 'Air Power' had any real effect on the ground battle. Yet now when it suits suddenly air power is 'decisive'.
Yes, and now one contrarian on an agenda is claiming the exact opposite of what a document he owns is claiming.


Strange how these things happen.

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

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

#102

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Mar 2018, 15:35

I am not interested in an endless back-and-forth. The reader can chose who to believe. Our conversation is over.

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

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

#103

Post by seppw » 11 Mar 2018, 23:36

I like how whenever Kenny's brain gymnastics don't work out, he makes a goal post moving reply or simply reiterates his position whilst ignoring that some of his points were already refuted and declares the discussion to be over unilaterally in order to have the last word. :lol: :thumbsup:

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.

#104

Post by Nick the Noodle » 13 Mar 2018, 01:14

The Ran Out of Fuel excuse, is from the Battle of the Bulge film, just as Pattons hostility vs a certain UK commander, was also a result of a Hollywood film. I more than suspect that Fury will lend credence to Cooper's Death Traps book.

That said, if Robert Forczyk is correct in Schwerpunkt, then the Germans lost against the Soviets due to that one issue alone. The irony is that so called reliable Pz III and IV's broke down enough so that the remainder had enough fuel to do what they did achieve.

Delwin
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 17 Feb 2006, 19:36
Location: Warsaw

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

#105

Post by Delwin » 09 Jan 2019, 16:10

Interesting topic. Is it not interesting the "fuel/breakdown excuse" is typical for any losing/retreating? The same applied to Polish army in 1939 when it comes to tank losses as well to French units in 1940 or Soviet units in 1941. The main question put here is whether the excuse is true or false i.e. either the tanks actually run of fuel (either due to its own supply failure or enemy actions) or it was an easy excuse for simple leaving the tank behind. It is sometimes claimed that Soviet units in 1941 happen to leave many tanks/guns etc. while nicely riding to the rear in the trucks. For obvious reasons:
1) the tank is slower (which suggests an issue with morale)
2) it might be not enough gas to fuel the tank but enough to fuel the truck: which is perfectly reasonable when you are retreating.

I am pretty sure that every option is applicable to any battle - irrespective whether it is German, British, Soviet or any other army. The only issue that might be discussed is how many "out of fuel" excuses were simply true. I am afraid that unless we have some data of the winning side, indicating that abandoned tank was able to drive and has some fuel in, we cannot decisively asses that.

Post Reply

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