Miles Krogfus wrote: ↑11 Oct 2019, 20:06
The Oxford-Duden German Dictionary, second edition 1999 page 60: "Abschuss (A) (eines Flugzeugs) shooting down; (eines Panzers) putting out of action, Der Pilot hatte 50 Abschusse-- the pilot had 50 kills . . ."
The German document I posted above (attachment page 2 of post # 1) that gives an exact tank models count, states that Das Reich killed these 35 write offs or wrecks.
The problem is not whether abgeschossen means shot up, shot down, put out if action, damaged, hit or any other word/words that are used to describe combat effort. There have been enough arguments on this forum as to what each really means or doesn't.
The key here is the veracity of the OKH memo claim.
Does your Oxford-Duden German Dictionary, second edition 1999 indicate which words in the document definitively state any of the pantsers 'put out of action' were left on the battlefield? Does your Oxford-Duden German Dictionary, second edition 1999 indicate which words in the document definitively state that these pantser 'write offs or wrecks' were physically counted, in situ, after the battle?
You remain insistant that somehow it represents a definitive statement of fact. That this claim supercedes the claim of the formation itself. But does it? What elevates this document to gospel status?
There are many posters on this forum who insist that only the German's own acknowlegement of totalausfalle is to be used as a metric for combat loss calculations. I notice you too wish to keep referencing back to those records. Comparisons of tank states as a guide to combat activity is frowned upon. The enemy's claims to be completely disregarded as worthless.
Applying the same level of scrutiny to the opposite side of the calculation, only a Red Army document detailing the equivalent of totalausfalle is to be used.
Would you accept an interrnal STAVKA memo relating to a combat claim submitted by somebody else as being definitive evidence of Das Reich losses? I suspect not.
