Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

[Michael Kenny]

Here is the Tiger loss list I compiled............... When kenny claims I deliberatly keep Tiger losses low he is incorrect

Just at a glance I can see two confirmed (as in can be proved to be knocked out by photographs) Tigers missing in early June alone and even SS 101s own figures shows they have a total loss of 9 Tigers by June 16th. You list only 4 in that period. That is less than half the actual figure.

[Sheldrake]

For token topical content was the M10 which reportedly Ko'ed Endemann's Tiger armed with a US 76 mm gun?

Markus

See post #4 in this thread for the RA claims for 29 June and 10 July.

Probably not documented. The 3" armed M10 was regarded as a decent anti-tank gun. Thus armed, a gun detachment would have a go against a Tiger (or a Mk IV that looked like a Tiger)

[Christianmunich]

You did not even understand what I did, apparently, you did not even read the introduction. The study only sampled the biggest battles to gather a major sample without oversampling "good" or "bad" fights. Tiger losses between those battles are irrelevant but the same is true for Allied losses. They were simply ignored. The smallest battle involved two companies in an all out clash that saw one company destroyed. Minor skirmishes were not sampled unless part of a bigger battle. Do you see me counting Sherman losses outside the sampled battles, you think they lost only 150 tanks around Caen? I gave specific definitions for the sampled battles. What you just said has nothing to do with the 5:1

Only the major Operations were sampled

Villers-Bocage, Epsom, Jupiter, Stack, Goodwood ( failed and was axed ), Blue Coat, Totalize, Tractable. What happened between those battles was not researched, neither Allied losses nor German losses outside of those operations have any bearing whatsoever on the ratios. THe biggest battles were chosen to avoid cherry-picking and guarantee good source material. Don't be afraid the Wittmann death charge is still in it....

You do not understand the methods you try to critique! I list only 4 because only for happened in the relevant time frame of 12th June. Lmao duuuudeeeee.

Just at a glance I can see two confirmed (as in can be proved to be knocked out by photographs) Tigers missing in early June alone and even SS 101s own figures shows they have a total loss of 9 Tigers by June 16th. You list only 4 in that period. That is less than half the actual figure.

Glance again, preferably over the introduction where the methods are explained.

And to answer your completely irrelevant question, they lost those Tigers during the bombing on the 15th, which you know and which is also totally irrelevant to the Tank exchange rates because those Tiger write-offs were neither due to enemy tanks nor even in sampled battles. You will totally ignore this comment here.

[Christianmunich]

For token topical content was the M10 which reportedly Ko'ed Endemann's Tiger armed with a US 76 mm gun?

Markus

See post #4 in this thread for the RA claims for 29 June and 10 July.

Probably not documented. The 3" armed M10 was regarded as a decent anti-tank gun. Thus armed, a gun detachment would have a go against a Tiger (or a Mk IV that looked like a Tiger)

The claim on Endemann Tiger was done 48th which was equipped with regular M10s? Because it looks like both types of M10s were present. The 91st comes to mind.

[Michael Kenny]

And to answer your completely irrelevant question, they lost those Tigers during the bombing on the 15th, which you know and which is also totally irrelevant to the Tank exchange rates because those Tiger write-offs were neither due to enemy tanks nor even in sampled battles. You will totally ignore this comment here.

So you are picking actions where the figures suit your agenda.

I can do maths.

Tiger losses by June 16 = 9
4 in Villers 13/6/44
4 in Bombing 15/6/44
Total 8

That leaves only 1 unaccounted for.
But................

1 tiger lost 15/6/44


1 Tiger lost 16/6/44

Total = 4+4+1+1+10.

Hmmm is not 10 1 more than 9?

This is indisputable proof that the loss numbers are understated because the totals of tanks in repair includes destroyed tanks that are never repaired. There is strong evidence more than 4 Tigers were destroyed in Villers. It may even be that all 6 Tigers in repair were total losses. Schneider says 2 Tigers were simply thrown away as 'not repairable' which is an excuse to move 2 Tigers from the 'lost in combat' list.

It is worth remembering that up until quite recently it was only ever admitted (by Tiger admirers) 3 Tigers were lost in Villers. The fraud Kurowski wrote in one of his books that Wittmann's Tiger was recovered and returned to service. It was only when Dan Taylor found photos of '212' hidden away in The Sharpshooters Archives that it could be proved it was never recovered and was indeed a total loss. Schneider's book does not list losses according to any Unit Documentation but by working (like everyone else) from photos. That is why he lists only 3 Villers Tiger losses in his books. Misguided souls keep saying he is 'the expert' when in fact he is no more an expert than anyone with a pair of eyes. Schneiders running total of Tiger losses for Normandy is mainly reconstruction from photos and guesswork. That is why he made so many mistakes and why his loss numbers should be seen as the absolute bare minimum and most favourable number of actual Tiger losses

[Michael Kenny]

Another bogus claim:

148th RAC lost ~ one Sqd within hours ( Stack )

They did not.
Only 2 Troops of A Squadron attacked so there was no possible way a full Squadron could be lost.
2 Shermans fell to AT guns and the max number of tanks lost to Tigers (they could also have been hit by AT guns) was 7 and in return they claimed hits on 2 Tigers one of which was seen to smoke.
Attempts to suggest a 'Squadron' of c.20 tanks were lost out is deceptive.

[Michael Kenny]

More exageration

4th CLY lost ~50% strength against the Tiger in Villers in a single day ( Villers Bocage )

4th CLY establishment was
4 AA Tanks
11 Stuarts
4 RHQ Tanks
12 Firefly
45 Cromwell. A total of 76 tanks.
50% of 76 is 38.

The War Diary lists 27 tanks lost but this can not be correct.

Even so the very max losses is not 50%.

[Michael Kenny]

23rd Hussars, ~20% of the Shermans lost within one week ( Bluecoat )
* 2nd F&F reduced to less than 50% operational within a week ( Bluecoat )

Gosh that is high. I bet no tank other than a Tiger could inflict that sort of damage on a Unit.
50% losses in 7 days? That is really horrific. Any tank that can inflict that sort of damage is indeed a super-tank.

Lets us compare it to 12th SS Pz IV Regiment.

June 7 to June 19. 23 Pz IV were total losses and 20+ in repair. A 48% reduction in 12 days on the original 97.



12th SS Pz IV during EPSOM

June 26th. 60 Pz IV fit for action.
June 27th 32 Pz IV fit for action.

A 45% reduction in 1-2 days!

On June 27th alone 12th SS lost 11 Pz IV completely destroyed and 21 sent for repair. a total of 32 tanks.
Damage mainly inflicted by 'puny' Shermans.

It must be a mistake lets check another Panzer Division. How about Pz Lehr by far the most powerful Panzer Division in Normandy.

June 1st 97 Pz IV. 86 Panther.
June 18 29 Pz IV, 23 Panthers.

That is an incredible 70% reduction in tanks in 12 days of fighting.

It puts the claimed 'massive' 20-50% losses of Shermans in a whole new light.

[Christianmunich]

You have again dodged all the mistakes you made, admitted none despite overwhelming evidence and moved on the next gish gallop. You have not admitted a single mistake. You have complelly misunderstood my research and the methods used and not a single word of apology after your massive blunder. You just drop more Gish Gallop, which I will also refute but you will also just ignore all the mistake you made and move on.

Let us show how irrelevant your comments are:

So you are picking actions where the figures suit your agenda.

You are fully aware which fights I picked. The biggest. Aka avoiding cherry picking. That is why my research includes one of the worst tank on tank days for Tigers on the Western Front, the 8th August with destruction of the Wittmann force. You know which battles I picked and why. You are again dishonest and try to Red Herring the readers. You mentioned losses which were fully irrelevant and after I pointed out your mistake you lament now my methods by misrepresenting them. Dishonest

This is indisputable proof that the loss numbers are understated because the totals of tanks in repair includes destroyed tanks that are never repaired.

Nobody has ever denied that lmao. If there were strong cases for destroyed Tigers which were not listed by Schneider they would be included. There was no evidence for a single Tiger that was strong enough to include such a Tiger none. You don't have such evidence either apparently.

My research even says so much. I should mention Tiger records are far more precise than Allied unit records but still.

You are just throwing a Red Herring. You want people to believe in my battles Tigers are missing but you have no evidence so you say "Tigers could be missing". It is the same with the 7th August were I undeniable showed that you withheld data and after all evidence were visibily simply choose to ignore reality.

The relevant question is, did one of those Tigers get destroyed during Villers Bocage? No likely not, if so the book you worked on would have uncovered this, right? Or do you claims you guys got the Tiger number wrong? A perfect example for your dishonesty. You are fully aware of the Tigers lost in Villers Bocage and you know I got the number right, you are still trying to throw shade on it. Just tell the reader which Tiger I forgot and where it was destroyed in Villers. Otherwise tell the reader why you are implying I forgot Tigers for Villers.

IF you have evidence for missing Tigers present it. I also believe Sherman losses in several battles are too low than I have givem them. That is how it is if there is no evidence I can verify a loss. I should also repeat this point I strongly believe the Tiger kills to be higher I was unable to pinpoint some reasonable claims.

The War Diary lists 27 tanks lost but this can not be correct.

Even so the very max losses is not 50%.

completely irrelevant to my research. If your best nitpicking of my 50000-word research is if it were 50% losses or 40% or 35% you are desperate. Write-offs were not counted by percentage loss. Totally irrelevant for the 5:1 rate which you attempt to disprove.

Only 2 Troops of A Squadron attacked so there was no possible way a full Squadron could be lost.
2 Shermans fell to AT guns and the max number of tanks lost to Tigers (they could also have been hit by AT guns) was 7 and in return they claimed hits on 2 Tigers one of which was seen to smoke.
Attempts to suggest a 'Squadron' of c.20 tanks were lost out is deceptiv

Deceptive? What are you talking about I only gave 9 kills to the Tiger and copied the unit diaries showing the losses. Stop lying good lord kenny.

Show the evidence, there are few people whose word has less power than yours. Unless you provide evidence it has to be assumed you make this up. Just yesterday you told people there are 9 unaccounted Tiger losses despite knowing this to be untrue. For 5 years you told people the 7th August was made up despite sitting on the brigade losses. Your word isn't enough sadly. Provide the evidence, please.

I have only given 9 kills which are easily explained by two troops alone. Provide the evidence that AT guns knocked out some of those, please tell us which unit and what your evidence is. The 33rd AB reported 11 heavy casualties.

That is an incredible 70% reduction in tanks in 12 days of fighting.

It puts the claimed 'massive' 20-50% losses of Shermans in a whole new light.

Irrelevant to my work you are trying to Gish Gallop/Strawmen. Also false. German forces fought longer with the same tanks, Allied units received new tanks so their longtime percent losses appear lower, they are actual attrition rates were often far higher. Basic math. You compare a unit that saw more combat without replacements against many single units that got heavy damaged, pulled back and replaced. The 2nd FF fought against minor enemy forces for a couple of days and was nearly out of action, same with the 23rd Hussars. The 12th SS fought multiple units over the duration of 2 weeks, which included battles like when the 1st Hussars got decimated. You are comparing apples to oranges, like always. The difference is now I am here and expose it.

Your type of argumentation is a good example for why I did the 5:1. Few people have the knowledge to create their own opinion without relying on others. Your dishonest argumentation and presentation of data snippets, often even incorrect and falsified, leaves a wrong picture. All data together shows, for example, the 5:1 quite well. People reading your posts over the decades would believe German tank forces got dumpstered during fighting. With a concise presentation of data we see how incorrect your interpretations are. Your weak attempts at rebuttal only show you were full aware of the meaning of data but choose to ignore it for ages.

Do I see this right that you still have not disputed the numbers I worked out? I see it that you claim now 2 tanks during Stack didn't fell to Tigers but presented no evidence? Is this your strongest argument? The rest was gish gallop anyways.

[antwony]

This came up on ACG many times and Kenny took his usual 100% British apologist line which turn threads into a mess.

Don’t think you understand Britons too well. Unlike most nation’s historians, British historians tend not to be that nationalistic. In fact, I'd describe criticism of Britain is pretty de riguer amongst UK historians. I’d describe M.Kenny as being, to possibly coin a phrase, un- British.

But it's intriguing Alt history and deserves its own thread- could the British/CW succeed at Caen and the normandy campaign in a more efficient manner? With what other tactics and operations? Were they in fact, missing certain capabilities and skills such as night attacks, combined arms coordination? Were the allies in fact at the beginning at their "learning curve" and not at "peak performance?" Were there flaws in their close air support, bombing, and artillery fires? What impact did the "Infantry shortage" in Britain have on their infantry doctrine and tactics, and execution in Normandy? How did this effect armor? did the units attack/exploit hard & fast enough or was their decision cycle too slow?

Sounds like the topic of an interesting thread. Perhaps you could take some reading tips from M. Kenny, he’s already recommended several works.

Some of these aspects have been touched upon, hinted at by various historians but never decisively so as far I can tell. The others I recognize from Soviet breakthrough operations on the eastern front. It doesn't seem like a comfortable/politically correct topic.

Describing Nazi apologists like Kurowski as not politically correct is fair. However the larger problem, at least from my prospective, is more the inaccuracy of WW2 histography particularly in regards to german compentence, or lack there of.

A better question is why you hate the tank aces and the people who like german armor so much.

I can’t speak for the poster you’re trolling. But, for me, having a “like” of particular elements of history and using terms like ace is juvenile.

It would be interesting to see this attitude for once deployed on Soviet and allied reports- and their Heroes of the Soviet Union, VCs, MOH's, DSC's.

Pretty much a strawman argument that no one else mentioned.

But, you do touch on an important point. High awards were conferred on German tank crews making claims of multiple kills, which wasn’t something people got a VC or CMOH for. Alongside the propaganda/ political incentives for creative after action reports, German crews got bling.

People can self publish these days:

The Great Panzer Ace conspiracy by Michael Kurkowski

Five Tigers One Sherman: The Final Verdict by Michael Kurkowski

Tommy Lafayette Green-Pool, Sherman Ace VC: 270 Kills ...

This isn’t even juvenile, it’s childish and beyond moronic. You can join Christian on my not to reply to list.

The choice of the point at which the allies broke the German lines in Normandy was determined as much by the Germans as by the Allies.

100% agree with the excerpt I’ve quoted here, as well as, the rest of your post. But would like to mention in addition that Normandy being the decisive battleground made the job easier for tac air than the job would have been if they had to fly further into France. Also, Normandy allowed the Allies to take full advantage of naval gunfire support and in the event of a proper German assault on the bridgehead it may have proved vital.

Oh, they won the war alright. After the German army had been bled white by three years of war against the Soviet Union, which saw the loss of its youngest, best trained, most competent soldiers. But even when they landed in Normandy, the British and Americans experienced repeated setbacks and needed far more time to retake France than the Germans had needed to originally conquer it back in 1940. Even though they had an enormous material superiority, and outnumbered them by three fold. And had complete air superiority which immobilised the enemy in daylight. And could decode their encrypted messages through ULTRA.

I also meant the US won the battles as well as the war. The only setback in Normandy was the storm that destroyed a Mulberry, the rest went pretty much as expected. Or, at least, largely conforming to one of the contingency plans.

Aren’t sure why you mention 1940. Aachen to, say, Le Havre is much shorter distance travel than Newport News to Utah beach.

Yes, ULTRA wasn’t good for the Germans. Was a pity for them they couldn’t do computers.

Yes, air superiority would have been nice for them to have. Was a pity, for them, they couldn’t match Allied high performance fighters.

But the 3 to one… When was that, late July? Is a bit pointless trying to divie up the responsibility, for that coming to pass, between the Allies and the Germans. But, it could be argued that was 100% due to German ineffectiveness.

This was partly due to the German armys higher fighting power, I.E., their leadership, training, initiative, cohesion, flexibility, etc. But it was also due partly to their more modern tank and anti-tank weapons. This cannot be denied.

Here we go. I can’t see us agreeing, or changing each others viewpoints. But, you took the time to reply.

I’d deny the German army had a higher fighting power. If I had to classify it, I’d describe the German army, of WW2, as being unfit for purpose and being a collection of vain- glorious egotists led by criminally incompetent morons. To be generous, I could perhaps describe it as lions being led by donkeys.

If the British and Americans had fielded something better than the Sherman and Cromwell, they would have made faster progress in Normandy. .

I wouldn’t, unequivocally, take that as a given. But that’s quite possible/ probable.

In retrospect, serial production and issuing of the M26 to combat formations earlier seems like a good idea, but see above comment.

I see no real substance to your 'above comment', just snobbish ego stroking and a holier-than-thou attitude. The Americans were completely negligent to avoid bringing heavy tanks to Normandy. Theres no real excuse for this decision, other than the weight limits of shipboard cranes. (A problem that could easily have been overcome with some out of the box thinking) That was never a real limitation, it was just the pre-text the U.S. army used.

I am holier- than- most, so can see where you’d get that from. Ego- stroking, OK. But, snobbish???

They had a fetish for fast medium tanks that could rip roar through the enemy rear areas. And to be sure, the Shermans were quite good at this task... But only when they could punch through the Germans front lines. Which they repeatedly failed to do for the first couple months of Normandy. A massed attack by Shermans would usually go 'splat' whenever it ran into a line of enemy tanks or anti-tank guns.

By 1944, pretty much every massed armoured attack would get splatted a lot. There wasn’t many Mathilda I/ II or T34/ KV1 vs. 37mm mismatches anymore. Actually, you don’t really need to go that deep in the WW2 timeline. Right through North Africa you had the 8th Army or D.A.K/ Italians armoured attacks getting splatted on the opposition’s AT guns

If the armored divisions had been spearheaded by heavy tanks that could dish out and receive alot of punishment, they would have done considerably better.

Noticed you haven’t mentioned M26’s. Presume you have some hypothetical US heavy tank in mind. Jumbo Sherman’s not being ready in time for Overlord was pretty negligent. The Black Prince Churchill variant, or at least Churchill formations having something 17 Ilber equipped (which they may have had, I know nothing about that) sounds like a good idea.

Fundamentally, I don’t like hypothetically discussions. Sorry about that.

Fair enough. But keep in mind that the Tigers in question were rolled into the TOE of the Hermann Goering panzer division, a poorly organised, poorly led, and dysfunctional formation. These factors undoubtedly had an influence in their poor tactical employment. .

Sure, I know next to nothing about the HG Panzer Div. Was trying to help the original poster come up with US vs. Tiger I combat and that was all I had. I wasn’t trying to criticizing the Germans. If anything I was trying to pass judgement on early bazookas.

Anyone who used the Shermans in Normandy ended up getting outclassed by the German 'Cats'[/b]. The British, the Canadians, the Polish, etc. As I said before, the British were facing the lions share of the heavy tank battalions. Thats why they (and the Canadians) had a track record of so many abortive, failed offensives. Villers-Bocage was a minor engagement compared to the stuff that happened later.

Once again, we are at odds. I wouldn't describe any of the offenses you listed as failures. For me, they were all comparable to mid period WW1 style “Bite and Hold” operations. Take the Germans front lines, then defeat the inevitable counter attack. Keep repeating till they run out of forces to counter attack/ hold the line.

Main difference I see between the wars was Royal Artillery’s role was changed for shifting the box barrage (in WW1) a couple of hundred yards to, ensuring that AT guns got forward and were emplaced before the Panzers turned up.

Well, that and the Imperial German Army in WW1 had competent and professional leaders who eventually worked out what the Commonwealth forces were up to and restrained their subordinates more effectively and prevented them from taking advantage of the temporary tactical opportunities offered by an enemy advance and didn't allow them to fritter away their commands to the detriment of the general situation.

[Michael Kenny]

German forces fought longer with the same tanks, Allied units recieved new tanks so their longtime percent losses appear lower, they are actual attrition rates were often far higher. Basic math. You compare a unit that saw more combat without replacements against many single units that got heavy damaged, pulled back and replaced.

No. I compared like with like. You picked a set number of days and losses over those days and suggested the Allied losses were 'huge'. Yet when I do the same you start the usual long list of excuses to explain why different rules apply to German tanks.
Rubbish.
I showed that the numbers you thought could prove how 'bad' the Sherman was also applied to German tanks attacked by puny Shermans and Cromwells. A % calculation works the same for a Unit with 1000 tanks as one with a 100. Its the % that is important not the total number.
In short if 50% losses in an Allied unit prove the Tiger was a mighty tank then the same losses in a German Unit proves how mighty the Sherman was.

[Michael Kenny]

Don’t think you understand Britons too well. Unlike most nation’s historians, British historians tend not to be that nationalistic. In fact, I'd describe criticism of Britain is pretty de riguer amongst UK historians. I’d describe M.Kenny as being, to possibly coin a phrase, un- British.

That would only be true if I were British-which I am not.

[Christianmunich]

German forces fought longer with the same tanks, Allied units recieved new tanks so their longtime percent losses appear lower, they are actual attrition rates were often far higher. Basic math. You compare a unit that saw more combat without replacements against many single units that got heavy damaged, pulled back and replaced.

No. I compared like with like. You picked a set number of days and losses over those days and suggested the Allied losses were 'huge'. Yet when I do the same you start the usual long list of excuses to explain why different rules apply to German tanks.
Rubbish.
I showed that the numbers you thought could prove how 'bad' the Sherman was also applied to German tanks attacked by puny Shermans and Cromwells. A % calculation works the same for a Unit with 1000 tanks as one with a 100. Its the % that is important not the total number.
In short if 50% losses in an Allied unit prove the Tiger was a mighty tank then the same losses in a German Unit proves how mighty the Sherman was.

They were huge, and in most time frames they were far heavier than German losses. What are you taking objection with here. THe only reason the percentage losses don't look even more horrific is their large number of different units which allowed a battered unit to be pulled out. Germans kept fighting with the same units. How rare was is for a German battalion to be put out of action after a single day? They often lost more tank than the German forces even employed but their % losses were ok? Silly reasoning sorry.

The fact you believe % losses is the important number is sad. But I don't have time.

Let us not get carried away: You implied I forgot a Tiger at Villers Bocage that was relevant to the 5:1 aka destroyed by a Allied tank. Do you have evidence for this or not?

Do you have evidence that another Tiger was destroyed by an Allied tank in Villers Bocage?

[antwony]

Don’t think you understand Britons too well. Unlike most nation’s historians, British historians tend not to be that nationalistic. In fact, I'd describe criticism of Britain is pretty de riguer amongst UK historians. I’d describe M.Kenny as being, to possibly coin a phrase, un- British.

That would only be true if I were British-which I am not.

Whoops, sorry

[Cult Icon]

Whoops, sorry

considering that I have most of the material mentioned by him and in Christian's articles.............he and I go way back on ACG up to 2009, you have no experience of the numerous threads locked from fights and other mayhem. Bannings, too of course. The controversial subject matter is the real excuse to indulge in endless trolling and bullying. It is no longer about objective analysis and more about generating excitement from verbal games. This thread conversation could have taken place in 2010, the same arguments over and over again.

Conversations on these topics do not have to be uncivil and rude, they are supposed to be fun and stimulate more learning!

So far your responses to my posts have nothing to offer but partisan trolling, no sense of humor, fallacious comments, and superficial comments typical of a tank game forum then that's fair game- you were on my ignore list long ago and I don't remember why or who you are. Good-I don't have to click it open once in a blue moon